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-Thread: 103376,80ae596d36288e8a
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!85.214.198.2.MISMATCH!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Ludovic Brenta <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ?
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 01:35:12 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <871uznaczz.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
References: <op.vvyoslycule2fv@douda-yannick>
	<872169864327910446.796089rmhost.bauhaus-maps.arcor.de@news.arcor.de>
	<9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
	<4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk>
	<4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net>
	<op.vvz3hpb7ule2fv@douda-yannick> <87aaeban8a.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<op.vvz4zgm2ule2fv@douda-yannick> <8762ozahib.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org>
	<op.vv0bpcojule2fv@douda-yannick>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org;
 posting-host="rPrXmWlYhTpgX479xW/wZA";
	logging-data="29572"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18qr1dpuvFeN4s+vfjqhKJZ"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:G8WcrhO9qi+canp8axJkNywCjB8=
	sha1:+XMNg3Wz3fTQbNwZdcV8ry5yCek=
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20407
Date: 2011-05-25T01:35:12+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Yannick Duchêne writes on comp.lang.ada:
> These all shows your objection is not relevant : pragmatism is,
> however.

Your insistence that BSD sockets ought to be part of the Ada language
definition is anything *but* pragmatic, especially when there already
exists a standard for sockets, called POSIX.5, an implementation of
which is readily available at no cost.  Oh BTW: no, you do not need all
of POSIX if you "just" want to use sockets.  If you were pragmatic,
you'd be busy writing your sockets application right now, using Florist.

> By the way, there is not event something like a standard OS (there may
> be proprietaries or not, but none is standard).

POSIX is a standard.  A POSIX-compliant OS is a standard OS.  An OS that
refuses to comply with POSIX, or any other standard, is non-standard.

Even MVS aka z/OS is standard in that sense.

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.