Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > C is fixed or not ?

Reply
Thread Tools

C is fixed or not ?

 
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2011
On 07/08/2011 08:20 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
....
> pthreads is their unwillingness to do so. Regarding Microsoft, they already
> provide suppoprt for pthreads.


According to Larry Jones, they don't provide such support for native
Windows programs, only for programs that run within the restrictions of
their "POSIX subsystem". Do you agree that he's right about that?
--
James Kuyper
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Shao Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2011
On 7/8/2011 10:47, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 07/08/2011 08:20 AM, Rui Maciel wrote:
> ...
>> pthreads is their unwillingness to do so. Regarding Microsoft, they already
>> provide suppoprt for pthreads.

>
> According to Larry Jones, they don't provide such support for native
> Windows programs, only for programs that run within the restrictions of
> their "POSIX subsystem". Do you agree that he's right about that?


Even using the term "native" is confusing! You have:

- Kernel-land APIs

- User-land APIs:

- "Native" API (NTDLL.DLL)

- "Windows" API (lots of .DLLs, the "basest" of which use the
"native" API)

- "POSIX" API (PSXDLL.DLL, which itself uses the "native" API)

"Notepad" is _not_ a native Windows program. It is a program that
natively works with Windows. I do believe that Mr. L. Jones meant
this kind of "native." He'd _also_ be correct for the _other_ use of
"native."

But of course your news-reader filtering choices won't allow you to read
this message. Good luck!
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jameskuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2011
jacob navia wrote:
> Le 07/07/11 17:13, Walter Banks a �crit :
> >
> > Jacob and others who have presented proposals here are often upset that
> > someone else has not come support to their ideas and technology. They
> > may have better proposals but no-one is prepared to do the work (considerable
> > work) on their behalf.
> >

>
> I have repeatedly said that I CAN'T go to another continent
> (or even within Europe) 3 or 4 times a year paying MYSELF
> the plane ticket, the 5 nights at the hotel and all the
> associated expenses.


The requirement that you attend meetings applies only to voting
members. I believer that all you need to submit proposals is non-
voting membership. You don't even need membership, if you can convince
someone who is a member that your proposal has sufficient merit to
justify them submitting it on their behalf. The nasty things you've
frequently said about the committee may make that a difficult route to
follow.
The key thing is that a lot of detailed work needs to be done checking
for and dealing with interactions between the proposed change and
other parts of the standard. Your proposals generally tend to be very
weak in that area; too often, you claim incorrectly that there are no
such interactions.
 
Reply With Quote
 
MikeP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2011
Rui Maciel wrote:
> MikeP wrote:
>
>> Let's see.. the POSIX/Unix crowd has their threading API already and
>> the Windows crowd has theirs

>
> Not quite. The only thing that stops a OS project from adding
> support for pthreads is their unwillingness to do so. Regarding
> Microsoft, they already provide suppoprt for pthreads. Therefore,
> this isn't a matter of "POSIX/Unix crowd" Vs "Windows crowd". This
> is a matter of a widely established and adopted international
> standard Vs an API taken from some proprietary library. And when
> defining an international standard, intentionally neglecting
> established international standards in favour of some proprietary
> code is not a good thing.
>


That they didn't choose it does not mean that they didn't consider it.
Why don't you ask them why they chose other than pthreads? I think some
people have already given indications of why, not the least of which is
that just because something has some kind of standardization, that does
not necessarily make it good or appropriate. Your posts on this seem so
whiney instead of factual.


 
Reply With Quote
 
MikeP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2011
Rui Maciel wrote:
> MikeP wrote:
>
>> So your point is that something by some standards organization should
>> always prevail over free enterprise? Standards are "old and
>> stodgy"/"not where the action is". Why implement obsolescence rather
>> than embrace state of the art?

>
> Please demonstrate where exactly the pthreads API is obsolete and how
> dinkumware's wrapper is superior to it.
>


When I receive your check in the mail and it clears, I will do that
analysis for you.

Seriously, anything standardized and 10 years old is surely something
holding back progress. I speak in general, but it is generally true. C,
C++, their libraries: all hindrances to progress. Other examples abound.


 
Reply With Quote
 
MikeP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-08-2011
Rui Maciel wrote:
> MikeP wrote:
>
>> Let's see... a POPULAR, PROVEN library by a renowned C expert being
>> considered for inclusion into the standard? What! Blasphemy! Right
>> JN?

>
> I don't believe that the pthreads API is not popular, proven nor
> developed by C experts.


I'm not taking sides on a given product, for I don't use either one of
them. I'm just saying about where the products come from and the
surrounding politics.

> Adding to this, the pthreads API has been an
> international standard for over a decade,


WOOO HOOO! SOOOO WHAT?!!! (You sound like a broken record).

> something which Dinkumware
> is not. If we are discussing a standardization process then ignoring
> an already established international standard while imposing a
> specific proprietary library which tries to duplicate the features
> already covered by that international standard then although it isn't
> blasphemy it sure isn't far from it. At least in what concerns the
> standardization process it does look a lot like incompetence, if not
> worse. And this doesn't bode well for this C201x standardization
> effort.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Oliver Jackson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-09-2011
On Jul 8, 3:44*pm, "MikeP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Rui Maciel wrote:
> > MikeP wrote:

>
> >> So your point is that something by some standards organization should
> >> always prevail over free enterprise? Standards are "old and
> >> stodgy"/"not where the action is". Why implement obsolescence rather
> >> than embrace state of the art?

>
> > Please demonstrate where exactly the pthreads API is obsolete and how
> > dinkumware's wrapper is superior to it.

>
> When I receive your check in the mail and it clears, I will do that
> analysis for you.
>
> Seriously, anything standardized and 10 years old is surely something
> holding back progress. I speak in general, but it is generally true. C,
> C++, their libraries: all hindrances to progress. Other examples abound.


Your mom abounds.
 
Reply With Quote
 
J. J. Farrell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2011
Rui Maciel wrote:
> http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
>> My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it than I
>> do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows
>> because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that Windows doesn't
>> provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads requires.

>
> Oh really?
>
> Pthread Support in Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Version 3.5
> Published: June 15, 2004
>
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../bb463209.aspx


.... which implements a subset of an old version of POSIX threads which
can only be used in programs running in the POSIX subsystem. Nothing to
do with using POSIX thread interfaces in "normal" Windows programs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Todd Carnes
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2011
On Sun, 10 Jul 2011 01:31:35 +0100, J. J. Farrell wrote:

> Rui Maciel wrote:
>> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>>
>>> My understanding, from people who know a whole lot more about it than
>>> I do, is that POSIX threads cannot be implemented on top of Windows
>>> because it presupposes a bunch of POSIX features that Windows doesn't
>>> provide, at least in the form that POSIX threads requires.

>>
>> Oh really?
>>
>> Pthread Support in Microsoft Windows Services for UNIX Version 3.5
>> Published: June 15, 2004
>>
>> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/l.../bb463209.aspx

>
> ... which implements a subset of an old version of POSIX threads which
> can only be used in programs running in the POSIX subsystem. Nothing to
> do with using POSIX thread interfaces in "normal" Windows programs.


.... And none of this has anything to do with the OP's original question.

Todd
 
Reply With Quote
 
lawrence.jones@siemens.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-10-2011
Rui Maciel <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
>
> > Yes, and POSIX was from the start designed with portability in mind and
> > even Microsoft already provides a POSIX implementation. And absolutely
> > no one uses it.

>
> Where do you base that claim?


On the fact that I've never heard a single person say they use it. On
the other hand, I've heard lots of people say they use cygwin, which is
very similar.

> What? Do you even know what you are saying? For example, do you actually
> know what the term "unix-like" refers to? Because even windows fits the
> description of a "unix-like" system.


Invoking Humpty Dumpty, when I use the phrase it means a system derived
from Unix or specifically designed to emulate it. That would include
all the commercial versions of Unix, the various BSDs, and Linux. It
does not include radically different systems that have emulation
subsystems or libraries that provide a unix-like environment that is not
compatible with the native environment specifically to allow porting
Unix programs with minimal change or being checklist compatible with
requirements to provide POSIX like VMS or Windows.
--
Larry Jones

Archaeologists have the most mind-numbing job on the planet. -- Calvin
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Newbie: fixed and not-empty element monique XML 3 01-27-2006 09:20 AM
Has 2.0 Fixed this 1.1 bug? Radio Buttons Are Not Mutually Exclusive When Used in a Repeater Server Control sloan@ipass.net ASP .Net 0 01-06-2006 09:23 PM
Free Fixed-Width/Fixed-Pitch fonts? johnp HTML 4 05-23-2005 06:14 AM
"Transparent" div not possible in IE - "background-attachment: fixed" not properly rendered GuyBrush Treepwood HTML 4 03-29-2005 07:16 AM
Fixed: Pix 501 which will not send on VPN AnyBody43 Cisco 0 10-28-2004 02:25 PM



Advertisments