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,FREEMAIL_FROM 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,UTF8 Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!feeder.news-service.com!94.75.214.39.MISMATCH!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?= =?utf-8?Q?=29?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Why no socket package in the standard ? Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 06:01:06 +0200 Organization: Ada @ Home 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: 0r2zfXuxfDSclSnAg57S2Q.user.speranza.aioe.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org User-Agent: Opera Mail/11.01 (Linux) X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:19451 Date: 2011-05-25T06:01:06+02:00 List-Id: Le Wed, 25 May 2011 05:07:06 +0200, Shark8 a = = =C3=A9crit: > {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.} Also funny to note two things. 1) There exist a =E2=80=9CWindows Services for UNIX=E2=80=9D, alias =E2= =80=9CSubsystem for = UNIX-based Applications=E2=80=9D. See http://technet.microsoft.com/fr-fr/library/bb496506(en-us).asp= x 2) Linux is not fully POSIX compliant See = https://www.opengroup.org/platform/single_unix_specification/uploads/40/= 13450/POSIX_and_Linux_Application_Compatibility_Final_-_v1.0.pdf (and it appears no one would want to pay the average $15000 fee = required to pass compliance test which would be required anyway) That was just to tease a bit the author of the claim :-P POSIX does not = = make an OS better or worse than another, as POSIX is meaningful only whe= re = POSIX is a requirement, and that is restricted to some application areas= = (as an example, most desktop users don't care at all). This provides no = = other added value than that. Then I don't believe POSIX is a standard the same way Ada is a standard.= = Ada started as a standard from requirements, while POSIX started as a = standard from existing features : its purpose was to be a standard for = UNIX systems=E2=80=A6 so anyone can bet this is not surprising then if U= NIces = seems more POSIX compliant than others. Or may be UNIX is the only one = legitimate OS base ? (I believe someones believe this, indeed). POSIX is= = not more a standard than PHP or Python are. I am not even sure a POSIX platform make designing a compliant Ada = compiler easier (at least as an example, the Linux thread model is not = that cool, not to talk about file locking, which is often required with = = concurrent task). Apologizes to others for that crooked post. -- = Si les chats miaulent et font autant de vocalises bizarres, c=E2=80=99es= t pas pour = les chiens. =E2=80=9C c++; /* this makes c bigger but returns the old value */ =E2=80= =9D [Anonymous]