TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
X-To: David Botton <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2004 13:25:07 -0700
Reply-To: "Joyce L. Tokar" <[log in to unmask]>
From: "Joyce L. Tokar" <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (14 lines)
On Mon, 6 Dec 2004 09:47:22 -0500, David Botton wrote:

>Ok #2 in our series of questions that will make their way in to the
>FAQ, articles, etc. (I will be putting together #1 answers soon)
>
>Why is it better to have tasking as a language feature than as an API?
>
>
A few more thoughts on the benefits of tasking as part of the language --
Well defined synchronization and communication semantics. The Ada rendezvous is very clear about how and when
tasks interact and exchange data.  Protected objects offer a mechanism to coordinate asynchronous communication in
a protected manner.  Again, with clearly defined semantics both respect to the access to the data and what happens
when exceptions occur.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2