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: 103376,8623fab5750cd6aa
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!news.illinois.net!attcg1!ip.att.net!news.binc.net!kilgallen
From: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: Ada BIND was: Improving Ada's image - Was: 7E7 Flight Controls
Date: 16 Jun 2004 07:38:18 -0600
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Message-ID: <voh2NJ+gt5Mc@eisner.encompasserve.org>
References: <40b9c99e$0$268$edfadb0f@dread16.news.tele.dk>
 <1086715817.122983@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <Sspxc.21282$8k4.550716@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <1086733411.736049@master.nyc.kbcfp.com>
 <3Auxc.11998$XY6.1296622@read2.cgocable.net>
 <Ygyxc.21522$QT3.4694@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> <40C85035.4020706@noplace.com>
 <qShyc.51846$8k4.1132952@news20.bellglobal.com>
 <Akmyc.11948$wi2.7228@nwrdny01.gnilink.net> <40CA0032.3010103@noplace.com>
 <rtKdnaxkjvMO7lfdRVn-vA@comcast.com> <40CAF0E1.4000904@noplace.com>
 <bebbba07.04Organization: LJK Software
NNTP-Posting-Host: eisner.encompasserve.org
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1087389449 3462 192.135.80.34 (16 Jun 2004
 12:37:29 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 12:37:29 +0000 (UTC)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1573
Date: 2004-06-16T07:38:18-06:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <7wKzc.29929$mz.28528@nwrdny02.gnilink.net>, Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
> Frank J. Lhota wrote:
>> LOL! To be honest, the only multitasking that existed in MS Windows in the
>> pre-95 days were pre-emptive multi-tasking, where each application was
>> expected to periodically call functions such as "GetMessage" and "Yield"
>> that would allow another application to get a chance to be scheduled. If an
>> application did not call such functions for a long time, all other
>> applications would be shut out. Not exactly the most stable platform!
> 
> Why exactly are you mocking this style of behavior? Isn't this a perfectly
> valid tasking style for the Ada runtime? I don't know Ada, but I believe
> it is perfectly legitimate that if an Ada task does not relinquish control
> and no other higher priority task is ready to run, then no other equal
> priority task need be given control.

A major difference would be that an operating system labelled as having
"cooperative multitasking" _has_ no higher priority tasks, so there is
no escape from the "wait until the piggy code cooperates" paridigm.