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: 103376,38159b1b5557a2e7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-01-29 10:12:57 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!wn13feed!worldnet.att.net!207.35.177.252!nf3.bellglobal.com!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Standard Ada Preprocessor References: <400A9B48.3060100@noplace.com> <400BD4B5.6000307@noplace.com> <400BDB7C.40100@noplace.com> <400D2150.6000705@noplace.com> <400E72F9.8060501@noplace.com> <100upo7ln5e3k59@corp.supernews.com> <400FC8E8.2040100@noplace.com> <_JSdna166JuxFo3dRVn-hg@comcast.com> <401115B7.5020205@noplace.com> <101bjm54k3rn8f0@corp.supernews.com> <101ghqq1bpk3m6e@corp.supernews.com> In-Reply-To: <101ghqq1bpk3m6e@corp.supernews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:58:34 -0500 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.223.163 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1075399062 198.96.223.163 (Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:57:42 EST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:57:42 EST Organization: Bell Sympatico Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:5055 Date: 2004-01-29T12:58:34-05:00 List-Id: Randy Brukardt wrote: > "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" wrote in message > news:a%ARb.52241$Kg6.386478@news20.bellglobal.com... >>Randy Brukardt wrote: > .... >>>What is the point of having that functionality? Any code depending on it > is >>>by definition not portable. >> >>Performance! >> >>Some platforms for instance support asynchronous I/O. >>Some with bugs, others not at all. If you are writing >>servers, that BTW are very performance sensitive, then >>if you can determine that asynch I/O works properly >>(and well) on a given platform, then you're going to >>use it! Anything less is inferior. > > Truly high-performance applications are by definition, not portable. This is a "head in the sand" argument, if I may say so. C/C++ code does this every day. To say that Ada shouldn't or needn't is statement of denial. That is my only point. >>>useful with, such as fall back to something that is supported). >> >>That will really help performance. Let's add some unnecessary >>exceptions! > > > Different problem. We're trying to get the code to run unmodified on as many > targets as possible. Having it being self-adapting is very valuable in that > aim. (Hopefully, even the binarys can run on most targets unmodified.) > > Randy. This is like probing hardware when Linux boots. Hardware is getting better, so that probes don't hang etc., but this adds time to the boot process, and for some hardware configs, is unstable and leads to hangs. Testing a version of a Linux kernel for a working asynch I/O API or not, seems much like the same thing. Its ugly, its dangerous and leads to more problems than it solves. It is much better to work all of that out at compile time, and never deal with it again. -- Warren W. Gay VE3WWG http://ve3wwg.tk