Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily
Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 14:08:44 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <vlgo5c$cig$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vlecm0$1465i$1@dont-email.me> <vlesf3$1ck$1@reader2.panix.com> <vlg4mb$1hi6d$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2025 14:08:44 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80";
	logging-data="12880"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Bytes: 2729
Lines: 38

In article <vlg4mb$1hi6d$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote:
>On Sun, 5 Jan 2025 21:09:55 -0000 (UTC)
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wibbled:
>>In article <vlecm0$1465i$1@dont-email.me>,  <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 4 Jan 2025 22:13:05 -0000 (UTC)
>>>Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> gabbled:
>>>>On Sat, 04 Jan 2025 08:31:05 -0300, Salvador Mirzo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> For instance, is there any Windows software that
>>>>> handles a TCP connection in an accept-fork-exec fashion?
>>>>
>>>>Almost certainly not. Because process creation is an expensive operation 
>>>>on Windows.
>>>>
>>>>Windows NT was masterminded by Dave Cutler, who was previously responsible 
>>>>for the VMS OS at his previous employer, DEC. He was a Unix-hater, part of 
>>>>a bunch of them at DEC. They would instinctively turn away from Unix ways 
>>>>of doing things, like forking multiple processes. So the systems they 
>>>>created did not encourage such techniques.
>>>
>>>Presumably VMS relied heavily on multithreading then like Windows or was a 
>>>process expected to everything itself sequentially?
>>
>>Many system services on VMS are asynchronous, and the system
>>architecture provides a mechanisms to signal completion; ASTs,
>>mailboxes, etc.  Thus, many programs (not all) on VMS are
>>written in a callback/closure style.
>
>I imagine that could become complicated very quickly and presumably relies
>on the OS providing the signalling mechanisms for everything you might
>want to do - eg waiting for a socket connection (or whatever the decnet
>equivalent was).

It's a fairly common way to structure software even today.  As I
said, the OS provides asychronous notification mechanisms (ASTs)
and IPC (mailboxes etc) for signaling operation completion.

	- Dan C.