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 10.224.93.19 with SMTP id t19mr9762867qam.3.1379925382521;
        Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.49.88.40 with SMTP id bd8mr897qeb.27.1379925382506; Mon, 23
 Sep 2013 01:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!d5no1514405qap.0!news-out.google.com!gv3ni1143qab.0!nntp.google.com!d5no1583773qap.0!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 01:36:22 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1lgdqz079ogp5.1ti8931i9me3x$.dlg@40tude.net>
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com;
 posting-host=105.236.242.232;
 posting-account=p-xPhAkAAADjHQWEO7sFME2XBdF1P_2H
NNTP-Posting-Host: 105.236.242.232
References: <2f813569-5ff8-4c20-a5ab-8538e6514906@googlegroups.com>
 <d50b1825-7bb9-4e03-ae47-6ec7a5fabf24@googlegroups.com>
 <d24a05ba-0922-41ed-9c16-6c886e0aedc5@googlegroups.com>
 <a0a73007-b776-4a9e-863c-5af979a0728f@googlegroups.com>
 <6a978d1c-1922-448b-91f7-cf8a19eab1fd@googlegroups.com>
 <1lgdqz079ogp5.1ti8931i9me3x$.dlg@40tude.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <8203a0cd-5238-4086-8ca0-1c6c1b3fec09@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Anti-Ada FUD (rant)
From: Peter Brooks <peter.h.m.brooks@gmail.com>
Injection-Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2013 08:36:22 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:17235
Date: 2013-09-23T01:36:22-07:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Monday, 23 September 2013 09:34:56 UTC+2, Dmitry A. Kazakov  wrote:
> 
> I don't see any relation ether. Clearly if TCP/IP were developed as a part
> of UNIX, socket would become a file. Yes, UNIX had no slightest idea that
> I/O could be asynchronous. As a result it ran a separate process for each
> possible kind of event. What a mess!
> 
If by 'event' you mean a data stream, then, how is that synchronous  I/O?

The Berkley Unix sockets were the API used for TCP/IP and the sockets remained sockets, so that's not the case either.
> 
> (And fork/exec is one of the ugliest parts of UNIX)
> 
Any justification for that prejudice?