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,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.201.147.68.MISMATCH!feeder.news-service.com!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder1.enfer-du-nord.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ? Date: Thu, 26 May 2011 21:05:21 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Message-ID: <87ei3l8eq6.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> References: <9cb23235-8824-43f4-92aa-d2e8d10e7d8c@ct4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <4ddb5bd7$0$302$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <4ddb81b8$0$7628$9b4e6d93@newsspool1.arcor-online.net> <87aaeban8a.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <8762ozahib.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <871uznaczz.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <015e3d6a-772a-41f8-a057-49c8b7bd80e1@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> <4MednVYCXuUZQEHQRVn_vwA@giganews.com> <6d913128-402e-47cc-ae3e-273b65198507@n10g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> <5acc868f-6f77-4a8d-be43-b9c926eb9c08@h9g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> <65dd1431-c6b2-42bd-bbab-27e1ad61a6c4@32g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="Bc/QTq9FCm6LeLeaqNB9Yw"; logging-data="15881"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+2N8QcnGdlCDTBNDBaRnCS" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:sD/5ERLNhl8neeQyzJK0Gv1IpAM= sha1:w4SSkP84pkJ82oqJ/s4CwGcrnsc= Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20470 Date: 2011-05-26T21:05:21+02:00 List-Id: Vinzent Hoefler writes on comp.lang.ada: > Maciej Sobczak wrote: > >> On 26 Maj, 14:42, Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> >>> Similarly, make >>> started as a hack to overcome the deficiencies of C >> >> Sorry, but here: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_%28software%29 >> >> there is nothing about it. Any references to C in this article are >> qualified with "for example", which is in line with what I've said. >> >> Could you please share the source of your information? I'm genuinely >> interested. > > > > 1977, Bell Labs, UNIX, first FORTRAN 77 compiler. > > I'd suspect, this compiler wasn't written in FORTRAN itself, so the > logical conclusion would be that the compiler was witten in C (like > almost anything for UNIX, especially at that time) and thus 'make' was > written to simplify the task of compiling those compiler's sources. ;) And that leads to http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch15s04.html: | Make originated with a visit from Steve Johnson (author of yacc, | etc.), storming into my office, cursing the Fates that had caused him | to waste a morning debugging a correct program (bug had been fixed, | file hadn't been compiled, cc *.o was therefore unaffected). As I had | spent a part of the previous evening coping with the same disaster on | a project I was working on, the idea of a tool to solve it came up. It | began with an elaborate idea of a dependency analyzer, boiled down to | something much simpler, and turned into Make that weekend. Use of | tools that were still wet was part of the culture. Makefiles were text | files, not magically encoded binaries, because that was the Unix | ethos: printable, debuggable, understandable stuff. -- Stuart Feldman -- Ludovic Brenta.