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: 
 g2news1.google.com!news3.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: Tue, 24 May 2011 23:57:48 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID: <8762ozahib.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>
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="27969"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";
	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX198xJgtlDwD8888gO7Wxmkc"
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:vshqQ+1+4wIkJ/FfANzbQdEADQQ=
	sha1:EQlkqBcjVfIxgN3ZG7+1MA9ms7g=
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19425
Date: 2011-05-24T23:57:48+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Yannick Duchêne (Hibou57)" <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr> writes:
> Le Tue, 24 May 2011 21:54:13 +0200, Ludovic Brenta
> <ludovic@ludovic-brenta.org> a écrit:
>> Wrong. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ada_Programming/Platform/POSIX says:
>>
>> "POSIX.5 is an IEEE (IEEE Standard 1003.5b-1996) and ISO (ISO/IEC
>> 14519:2001) standard defining an Ada interface to the POSIX system
>> calls."
> Yes. I did not say there is not standard POSIX Ada, I instead said
> POSIX Ada is not part of the Ada standard.

That's because making POSIX part of Ada would restrict Ada to working
only on POSIX targets.

>> Oh, and I think I did mention GNAT.Sockets.  So what are people
>> complaining about, again?
> GNAT specific, that's a big enough point [...]

OK.

So, what you're complaining about is that sockets are not part of Ada.
Thay are not.  Furthermore, they cannot be part of Ada or any other
general-purpose language definition because (a) general-purpose
languages must work on targets that do not have sockets and (b)
mandating that the language provide sockets on targets that don't have
them is a bad idea.  Therefore, sockets must be in an optional,
target-specific library; preferably one with a standard interface.
That's what POSIX.5 is.  Ada with POSIX.5 is in this respect in a better
position than all other languages mentioned in this thread, i.e. it has
good, official standards for both the language and the socket interface.

And if you're so keen on standards, why are you still using a
non-standard, proprietary operating system?

-- 
Ludovic Brenta.