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: 103376,3e9e2e402ed75bc3
X-Google-NewGroupId: yes
X-Google-Attributes: gida07f3367d7,domainid0,public,usenet
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,UTF8
X-Received: by 10.180.106.232 with SMTP id gx8mr15165486wib.2.1366716651964;
        Tue, 23 Apr 2013 04:30:51 -0700 (PDT)
Path: 
 hg5ni16466wib.1!nntp.google.com!feeder1.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!194.109.133.86.MISMATCH!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed3.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news.stack.nl!aioe.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: =?utf-8?Q?Yannick_Duch=C3=AAne_=28Hibou57?=
 =?utf-8?Q?=29?=
 <yannick_duchene@yahoo.fr>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: aws vs ruby rails or php? how much faster?
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 13:30:46 +0200
Organization: Ada @ Home
Message-ID: <op.wvzrlknsule2fv@cardamome>
References: <cb0c69fa-3393-4bbf-88af-0399057226f7@googlegroups.com>
 <87vc7fm3lp.fsf@adaheads.sparre-andersen.dk> <op.wvyn3phdule2fv@cardamome>
 <517627a4$0$32104$14726298@news.sunsite.dk> <op.wvzfj1adule2fv@cardamome>
 <1bjhu6xj0sh4e.1u1r23nzr3zrh$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: MElZi/LkXjdV3cIyylAczw.user.speranza.aioe.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Complaints-To: abuse@aioe.org
User-Agent: Opera Mail/12.15 (Linux)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed; delsp=yes
Content-Transfer-Encoding: Quoted-Printable
Date: 2013-04-23T13:30:46+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Le Tue, 23 Apr 2013 12:08:15 +0200, Dmitry A. Kazakov  =

<mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> a =C3=A9crit:

> On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 09:10:39 +0200, Yannick Duch=C3=AAne (Hibou57) wro=
te:
>
>> Asynchronous I/O can be achieved with Ada too, and that does not impl=
ies
>> tasking, just wrapping what the OS provides for that.
>
> Oh, it does. I don't know what you guys are talking about, but  =

> asynchronous
> I/O is intimately related to tasking.

Yes it is, but as you said, it save tasks. The application doing  =

asynchronous I/O, does not even need to run multiple tasks, just only on=
e  =

which is its own task, as the second may be required task can be provide=
d  =

by the OS (and may be just interrupts, depending on the kind of I/O). Wh=
en  =

I said =E2=80=9Cdoes not implies tasking=E2=80=9D, I wanted to underline=
 the same as you  =

did, that it does not cost tasks.

> If you have tasks you normally don't need asynchronous I/O, you do it =
in  =

> a
> blocking way.
>
> If you have one task or less tasks than I/O requests pending, you do I=
/O
> asynchronously.
>
> With many simultaneous requests you should go asynchronous because the=

> number of tasks is limited. An OS can handle far less simultaneous tas=
ks
> than simultaneous I/O requests/channels.
>
> For either HD or sockets you could do I/O synchronously (blocking) or
> asynchronously (non-blocking).
>


-- =

=E2=80=9CSyntactic sugar causes cancer of the semi-colons.=E2=80=9D [1]
=E2=80=9CStructured Programming supports the law of the excluded muddle.=
=E2=80=9D [1]
[1]: Epigrams on Programming =E2=80=94 Alan J. =E2=80=94 P. Yale Univers=
ity