From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!87.79.20.105.MISMATCH!news.netcologne.de!ramfeed1.netcologne.de!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool2.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:39:11 +0200
From: Georg Bauhaus <rm.dash-bauhaus@futureapps.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US;
 rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?
References: <op.vvyoslycule2fv@douda-yannick>
 <872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
 <9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
 <4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
 <4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
 <op.vvz3hpb7ule2fv@douda-yannick> <87aaeban8a.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <op.vvz4zgm2ule2fv@douda-yannick> <8762ozahib.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <op.vv0bpcojule2fv@douda-yannick> <871uznaczz.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
 <015e3d6a-772a-41f8-a057-49c8b7bd80e1@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
 <op.vv0qr4d5ule2fv@douda-yannick>
In-Reply-To: <op.vv0qr4d5ule2fv@douda-yannick>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-ID: <4ddcb21f$0$6630$9b4e6d93@newsspool2.arcor-online.net>
Organization: Arcor
NNTP-Posting-Date: 25 May 2011 09:39:11 CEST
NNTP-Posting-Host: c6790433.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=HM62N0?CSEg^Y=RbYBPl4`A9EHlD;3Ycb4Fo<]lROoRa8kF<OcfhCOk0>j8fVEViWnPCY\c7>ejVhC[DnC`;PS\b9<J55k\Ge:j
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20424
Date: 2011-05-25T09:39:11+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On 5/25/11 6:01 AM, Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57) wrote:

>  POSIX does not make an OS better or worse than another,
>   as POSIX is meaningful only where POSIX is a requirement,
>   and that is restricted to some application areas (as an
>   example, most desktop users don't care at all).
>  This provides no other added value than that.

When programs are written for POSIX, chances are that you can
compile them.  This is a consequence of POSIX being a widely
supported standard.

POSIX is a much better starting point than that huge non-standard
obstacle that gets in the way of portability: Unix-C+autoconf.