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,FREEMAIL_FROM
	autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Received: by 10.224.125.72 with SMTP id x8mr1474680qar.5.1379938565173;
 Mon, 23 Sep 2013 05:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.71.34 with SMTP id r2mr9805qeu.14.1379938565149; Mon, 23
 Sep 2013 05:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 border1.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca3.giganews.com!border4.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!d5no1532323qap.0!news-out.google.com!gv3ni1143qab.0!nntp.google.com!d5no1602286qap.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 05:16:05 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE65CACD.371E3%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=105.236.242.232;
 posting-account=p-xPhAkAAADjHQWEO7sFME2XBdF1P_2H
NNTP-Posting-Host: 105.236.242.232
References: <2f813569-5ff8-4c20-a5ab-8538e6514906@googlegroups.com>
 <d50b1825-7bb9-4e03-ae47-6ec7a5fabf24@googlegroups.com>
 <d24a05ba-0922-41ed-9c16-6c886e0aedc5@googlegroups.com>
 <a0a73007-b776-4a9e-863c-5af979a0728f@googlegroups.com>
 <6a978d1c-1922-448b-91f7-cf8a19eab1fd@googlegroups.com>
 <1lgdqz079ogp5.1ti8931i9me3x$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <8203a0cd-5238-4086-8ca0-1c6c1b3fec09@googlegroups.com>
 <1ixhazoag8y0l.4mpw6pmi83xm.dlg@40tude.net>
 <CE65CACD.371E3%yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <51a27fa6-027d-4655-a78c-6a582811e23f@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Anti-Ada FUD (rant)
From: Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.brooks@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 12:16:05 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Original-Bytes: 2611
Xref: number.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.lang.ada:183421
Date: 2013-09-23T05:16:05-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, 23 September 2013 11:39:09 UTC+2, Bill Findlay  wrote:
> =20
> > Fork/exec represent a unique combination of total disregard to efficien=
cy
> > with violation of practically any known principle of good software desi=
gn.
> =20
> Now there I have to agree with the UNIX critics.
>=20
Why? I worked with a number of operating systems before encountering unix, =
and I've seen a few since. The setup and tear-down work involved with launc=
hing processes was a massive overhead that slowed things down and added ver=
y little value. Fork-exec, on the other hand, is quick because the child pr=
ocess inherits the environment, which has many other advantages - security,=
 for example, is resolved at login and then inherited, similarly with I/O.=
=20

What's your objection to it? What dispatching system works better?

What particular principles of software design does the mechanism violate?