From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Are rendezvous dead?
Date: 14 Apr 2002 12:52:51 -0700
Date: 2002-04-14T19:52:51+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204141152.3c6519e@posting.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 3CB940F7.4EC50CFD@yahoo.com
Anatoly Chernyshev <rhezusfactor@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<3CB940F7.4EC50CFD@yahoo.com>...
> The question is: are there any practical instances (in Ada 95) when use
> of rendezvous is more advantageous than of protected types? In other
> words, is it worhty of trying to write the code using only protected
> types and completely ignoring rendezvous as possible solution (like the
> GOTO operator)?
Not at all, this would be an absurd point of view. Yes, in
some low level instances, the extra efficiency that comes
from using protected objects is worth the kludgy non-orthogonal
definition of this feature (all the business
of potentially blocking objects etc).
But generally from a design and structure point of view,
RV is far superior, for the same reason that CSP is superior to
semaphores (I trust no one will dispute the
latter, though you never know on CLA)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-04-14 19:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-04-14 8:42 Are rendezvous dead? Anatoly Chernyshev
2002-04-14 10:55 ` Dmitry A.Kazakov
2002-04-14 14:00 ` Pat Rogers
2002-04-15 13:38 ` Marin David Condic
2002-04-14 19:52 ` Robert Dewar [this message]
2002-04-16 8:48 ` John McCabe
2002-04-15 14:04 ` Ted Dennison
2002-04-15 16:09 ` Jim Rogers
2002-04-15 16:36 ` Jean-Pierre Rosen
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox