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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2d2df3e9ad18fa63
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-06-21 12:09:37 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!feed.news.nacamar.de!news.belwue.de!news.uni-stuttgart.de!news.enyo.de!not-for-mail
From: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ISO/IEC 14519 - Ada POSIX binding
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 21:09:37 +0200
Message-ID: <87znkbqmby.fsf@deneb.enyo.de>
References: <m38yrxd9pf.fsf@niflheim.malonet>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: albireo.enyo.de 1056222577 3066 212.9.189.171 (21 Jun 2003 19:09:37
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: 
Cancel-Lock: sha1:cI5ED9CSo/jCfnJPa8JNb6vIk9c=
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39532
Date: 2003-06-21T21:09:37+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Mark Lorenzen <mark.lorenzen@ofir.dk> writes:

> So my big question is therefore: What's wrong with ISO/IEC 14519? It
> is of course pretty big, but that is a natural consequence of POSIX
> being big.

There is no affordable documentation, for a start.  POSIX.5 itself is
rather expensive.  There is no publicly accessible implementation.  As
a result, hardly anybody knows how the interface "feels" in practice.

The rest of POSIX.5 has severe design deficiencies; I think it's
reasonable to assume that binding to the BSD sockets API is not much
better.