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 Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!z19g2000yqz.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Ludovic Brenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ? Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 00:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <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> <87aaeban8a.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <8762ozahib.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <871uznaczz.fsf@ludovic-brenta.org> <015e3d6a-772a-41f8-a057-49c8b7bd80e1@w21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 153.98.68.197 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1306309795 19303 127.0.0.1 (25 May 2011 07:49:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 07:49:55 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: z19g2000yqz.googlegroups.com; posting-host=153.98.68.197; posting-account=pcLQNgkAAAD9TrXkhkIgiY6-MDtJjIlC User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-Google-Web-Client: true X-Google-Header-Order: HUALESRCNK X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.0.6) Gecko/2009012111 Red Hat/3.0.6-1.el5 Firefox/3.0.6,gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:20427 Date: 2011-05-25T00:49:54-07:00 List-Id: Shark8 wrote on comp.lang.ada: > On May 24, 6:35=A0pm, Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> Yannick Duch=EAne writes on comp.lang.ada: >>> 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. =A0A POSIX-compliant OS is a standard OS. =A0An OS = that >> refuses to comply with POSIX, or any other standard, is non-standard. >> >> Even MVS aka z/OS is standard in that sense. > > And, it is useful/instructive to realize that just because something > is a [part of a] standard does NOT mean that standard requires/says > anything useful. The reason why I mentioned POSIX is because the OP declared BSD sockets to be "the standard" and wanted this included in the Ada language definition. POSIX is "the standard" as far as sockets are concerned and POSIX.5 is "the standard Ada socket interface". But you are right; just because someone wants sockets in Ada does not mean that sockets are necessarily the best solution, or even useful at all, for the problem at hand. > This was something I learned from a mathematics professor (though > about 'definitions' rather than 'standards') and is important enough > that it should be remembered from time-to-time. > > {IIRC as far as POSIX is concerned, MS Windows has been POSIX > complaint since 2000... and this says NOTHING about how portable > binaries (or their sources) are between Windows and unix/linux > computers.} Actually it does; POSIX is all about source compatibility. Of course, if you want source compatibility, your application must comply with the standard, i.e. not use any non-standard features (i.e. you can use sockets but no GUI for example). This brings us back to the question of the usefulness of a particular standard for a particular problem. -- Ludovic Brenta.