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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,6d10b4841e4a643b X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-04-14 12:52:51 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: dewar@gnat.com (Robert Dewar) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Are rendezvous dead? Date: 14 Apr 2002 12:52:51 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com/ Message-ID: <5ee5b646.0204141152.3c6519e@posting.google.com> References: <3CB940F7.4EC50CFD@yahoo.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.232.38.14 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1018813971 11250 127.0.0.1 (14 Apr 2002 19:52:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: 14 Apr 2002 19:52:51 GMT Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:22525 Date: 2002-04-14T19:52:51+00:00 List-Id: Anatoly Chernyshev 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)