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 X-Google-Thread: 103376,8623fab5750cd6aa X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-stoc.telia.net!217.209.241.210.MISMATCH!news-stod.telia.net!telia.net!masternews.telia.net.!newsc.telia.net.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Bj=F6rn_Persson?= User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: sv, sv-se, sv-fi, en-gb, en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Ada BIND was: Improving Ada's image - Was: 7E7 Flight Controls Electronics References: <40b9c99e$0$268$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk> <1086715817.122983@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <1086733411.736049@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3Auxc.11998$XY6.1296622@read2.cgocable.net> <40C85035.4020706@noplace.com> <40CA0032.3010103@noplace.com> <40CAF0E1.4000904@noplace.com> <40CEE1BC.4000508@noplace.com> <7wKzc.29929$mz.28528@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> In-Reply-To: <7wKzc.29929$mz.28528@nwrdny02.gnilink.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-ID: <_NKzc.96059$dP1.312794@newsc.telia.net> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 22:32:26 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.209.116.179 X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.com X-Trace: newsc.telia.net 1087338746 217.209.116.179 (Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:32:26 CEST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 00:32:26 CEST Organization: Telia Internet Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1545 Date: 2004-06-15T22:32:26+00:00 List-Id: Hyman Rosen wrote: > Frank J. Lhota wrote: >=20 >> LOL! To be honest, the only multitasking that existed in MS Windows in= =20 >> the >> pre-95 days were pre-emptive multi-tasking, where each application was= >> expected to periodically call functions such as "GetMessage" and "Yiel= d" >> that would allow another application to get a chance to be scheduled. = >> If an >> application did not call such functions for a long time, all other >> applications would be shut out. Not exactly the most stable platform! >=20 >=20 > Why exactly are you mocking this style of behavior? Isn't this a perfec= tly > valid tasking style for the Ada runtime? I don't know Ada, but I believ= e > it is perfectly legitimate that if an Ada task does not relinquish cont= rol > and no other higher priority task is ready to run, then no other equal > priority task need be given control. That's fine for *threads* (for some applications), not for *processes*=20 in a general-purpose operating system. If a buggy program enters an=20 infinite loop you want to be able to kill it. --=20 Bj=F6rn Persson jor ers @sv ge. b n_p son eri nu