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=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE,
	MSGID_SHORT,REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.4
Xref: utzoo comp.lang.ada:3375 comp.software-eng:3029
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!ogicse!emory!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.software-eng
Subject: Re: Ada rendezvous
Message-ID: <8220@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 3 Mar 90 05:17:11 GMT
References: <SZ-1HYDxds13@ficc.uu.net>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

>From article <SZ-1HYDxds13@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva):
> If you want to talk about blatantly unsafe constructs, how about ADA's use of
> rendezvous as the primary (maybe only) message passing construct? The MINIX
> operating system is written in C, but the biggest source of subtle bugs in the
% system (from my observation of the discussions in comp.lang.minix) is the use
% of rendezvous. I understand that the DoD has given up on using ADA's tasking
% and switched to a hosted environment on top of VRTX partly because of this.

   I seriously doubt that the reasoning had anything to do with not
   liking the rendezvous; it probably had to do instead with requiring
   a greater degree of control over task scheduling.


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu