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 15:56:55 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!newshub.sdsu.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!oleane.net!oleane!freenix!proxad.net!proxad.net!skynet.be!skynet.be!louie!tlk!not-for-mail Sender: lbrenta@lbrenta Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ISO/IEC 14519 - Ada POSIX binding References: <87znkbqmby.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> From: Ludovic Brenta Date: 22 Jun 2003 00:51:33 +0200 Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: -= Belgacom Usenet Service =- NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.201.75.23 X-Trace: 1056236214 reader0.news.skynet.be 313 80.201.75.23:48878 X-Complaints-To: abuse@skynet.be Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:39545 Date: 2003-06-22T00:51:33+02:00 List-Id: Mark Lorenzen writes: > You are correct that POSIX is not perfect, but it is PORTABLE and > supported by a lot of interesting platforms. If we want to persuade > people to using Ada instead of the "usual" languages for anything > else than real-time or embedded systems, then we NEED support for > POSIX. Yes. If the Ada standard library were extended with complete support for operating system services (or even just sockets) in a non-POSIX way, it would be almost impossible to persuade people to use Ada at all in the "general" computing field, even if the library were very good. They would object that the learning curve is way too steep, what with this huge standard library that nobody knows. If by contrast you tell them "Ada uses POSIX to talk to the platform so you'll pick it up in no time", then people will listen and notice how the exception model makes their Ada programs better than C and C++ programs (there is no C++ API for POSIX, so C++ programs have to use the crude C interface; Ada programs are blessed with a clean Ada interface). And here is another argument to support POSIX.5: Designing a new, incompatible, Ada interface to OS services would be a huge effort that would not necessarily yield better results than POSIX.5, but the results would definitely arrive at least 11 years after POSIX.5. So, I think it would be better to take POSIX.5 as a given, and spend quality time on standardising containers, for example. To conclude: IMHO, designing a new Ada standard for sockets amounts to reinventing the wheel. -- Ludovic Brenta.