Re: [9fans] critique of sockets API

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

> I might as well repeat myself: choice of strategy depends on the
> application. Given choice programmers can decide on which strategy or
> combination of strategies works best. Without choice, well, they will just
> live with what's available.

this is a very deep philosophical divide between windows and
systems like plan 9, and research unix.  the approach the labs
took was to provide a minimal set of primatives from which
one can build what's needed.  compare just r?fork and exec
with all the spawn variants windows has.

i think you're trying to argue that — a priori — choice is good?

but given that plan 9 is about having a system that's easy
to understand and modify, i would think that it would be
tough to demonstrate that asyncronous i/o or callbacks
could make the system (or even applications) simplier.
i doubt that they would make the system more efficient,
either.

do you have examples that demonstrate either?

> One Right Way" always leaves open the question of whether a different
> choice of strategy on the same platform, were a different choice available,
> would have yielded better results.

clearly if that position is accepted, computer science is a
solved problem; we should all put our heads down and just
code up the accepted wisdom.

that's not the position i subscribe to.  and since plan 9
is simple and easy to change, it makes an ideal system
for someone who wants to try new things.

- erik