Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?

[Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>]

On 5/25/11 1:20 AM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

>> Which is why I had hoped to remind that Ada programs, even when
>> operating a network, might not profit at all from a standard sockets
>> package, if they do not use sockets, but do control networked communication.
> Be pragmatic. Nothing is totally 0 or totally 1.

Bits are, in general, totally 0 or totally 1.

> The kind of application you are pointing, are the most rare,

Really?  I understand that < 32 bits µcontrollers are the most
widespread computer systems.  Is it true that they use UDP,
say, to send and receive signals along the wire, if any?


>> Or, if sockets are as important as, say, timers, or windows---if they
>> are important, then enlighten industry (or govt.) that they have the power
>> to ask for compiler-independent packages. These would not even
>> need ISO standardization, just compiler independence, to be used
>> by industry.
> May be an option, I agree. Still that as replied elsewhere, you still lack an answer to the other option : why would fund the rejection ?

Why fund rejection?  No money needed there.
  
>> No one else has the power.
> Pragmatism would suggest the community of active developers (proprietary or not).

The community of active developers tends to be part of,
and to be paid by, the industry (and govt.).  Not every
developer has the time, the resources, and the freedom to
write the stuff that everyone needs.  Things seem to go
well as regards POSIX, likely including free software development.


>> Remembering industry's built-in rewards system for anti-co-operation,
>> its power to influence the software makers towards generally useful
>> packages is unlikely to be employed, though. (Packages that could
>> be used with a different compiler! By a different company!?)
> There is no way to be afraid of such things with sockets. Or do you see some ?

I wouldn't be surprised!


>> The original question was, "Why no socket package in the standard?".
>>
>> Let me rephrase it: "Why no ISO/IEC 14519:2001 package in the standard?"
> There is no way to rephrase it this way. POSIX is not comparable to sockets.

Why?  POSIX defines Socket, Socket Address, Connection, Datagram,
etc.  It has a section "Networking Services" that starts with "Sockets Overview".