Re: OT: Windows (Was: Re: Open Source does not mean easily

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.