Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vljnns$o9b$1@reader2.panix.com> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer Subject: Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:19:56 -0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Message-ID: <vljnns$o9b$1@reader2.panix.com> References: <uu54la$3su5b$6@dont-email.me> <vljg72$28nj0$1@dont-email.me> <vljj7b$g76$1@reader2.panix.com> <vljmc6$29tkd$1@dont-email.me> Injection-Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2025 17:19:56 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="24875"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com" X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) In article <vljmc6$29tkd$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote: >On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 16:02:51 -0000 (UTC) >cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wibbled: >>In article <vljg72$28nj0$1@dont-email.me>, <Muttley@DastardlyHQ.org> wrote: >>>On Tue, 7 Jan 2025 14:13:29 -0000 (UTC) >>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) wibbled: >>>>This is conflating multiple things. Most IO operations dealing >>>>with the actual hardware _are_ asynchronous (this is what >>>>McIlroy meant in the quote I posted earlier). The system call >>>>interface gives the program the illusion of those happening >>>>sequentially, but that's not how the devices really work. >>> >>>And? By your definition its still asynchronous programming. >> >>In the kernel, it sure is. Unix programmers have been writing >>asynchronous programs (using e.g. `fork`) since 1970. > >Thats not what we're discussion here and you know it. Actually, it is. >>>Please don't just make stuff up. >> >>Hmm. I wonder what shell you use, if you use Unix at all. > >Stupid comments really are your forte arn't they. I see that you can't support your argument. >>Here for example is the signal handler for SIGINT in bash: >>https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/bash.git/tree/sig.c?h=devel#n691 > >Basically sets flags. Did you actually read and understand any of that code? >>Here's the SIGWINCH handler for good 'ol `script` from >>OpenBSD: >>https://github.com/openbsd/src/blob/6d253f95424ee0054c798f493d12377911cd3668/us >>r.bin/script/script.c#L224 > >Not a clever way to do it because an xterm and other terminal progs can >indirectly cause a whole load of SIGWINCH to be created if someone is resizing >it and only the final one really needs the ioctl call done. Better to set a >flag then manually do a call when appropriate. Ok. You may even be right! But tell me: where would you check those flags? Regardless, here you are, again, moving the goalposts in the face of evidence that contradicted your earlier position. >>Those are just a few examples. If one cares to look, one will >>find many more in non-trivial programs used in production daily. > >There are always exceptions to every rule. You seem to be so desperate to >win this argument I can only assume your fragile ego has been burst by >someone having the temerity to disagree with you. Tough, suck it up. Ah, here we go. The classic attempt at an insult. Look, you made categorical, definitive statements. Those statements were factually incorrect. I pointed that out. You seem to be pretty upset about that and want to argument the point, no matter how much evidence to the contrary you are presented with. Perhaps I am not the one with the fragile ego that needs to suck it up when disagreed with. - Dan C.