From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI,
	RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Received: (qmail 10218 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2020 17:59:30 -0000
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53)
  by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Jun 2020 17:59:30 -0000
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
	id AE8919CAE1; Wed,  3 Jun 2020 03:59:28 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 302649CAD2;
	Wed,  3 Jun 2020 03:59:11 +1000 (AEST)
Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112)
 id 503449CAD2; Wed,  3 Jun 2020 03:59:08 +1000 (AEST)
Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60])
 by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D08BC9C96B
 for <tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>; Wed,  3 Jun 2020 03:59:07 +1000 (AEST)
X-Envelope-From: arnold@skeeve.com
Received: from freefriends.org (freefriends.org [96.88.95.60])
 by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 052Hx5Ug022620
 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); 
 Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:59:06 -0600
Received: (from arnold@localhost)
 by freefriends.org (8.14.7/8.14.7/Submit) id 052Hx5Et022619;
 Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:59:05 -0600
From: arnold@skeeve.com
Message-Id: <202006021759.052Hx5Et022619@freefriends.org>
X-Authentication-Warning: frenzy.freefriends.org: arnold set sender to
 arnold@skeeve.com using -f
Date: Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:59:05 -0600
To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org, paul.winalski@gmail.com
References: <F364B944-42D3-4AAA-88DB-6EBBFEDF9F21@planet.nl>
 <CABH=_VRjxL=p8f+ePVvBWKuQN3aFE-BW4aE9MAcjwkK-Mm1rkg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABH=_VRjxL=p8f+ePVvBWKuQN3aFE-BW4aE9MAcjwkK-Mm1rkg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Heirloom mailx 12.5 7/5/10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [TUHS] non-blocking IO
X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list <tuhs.minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/>
List-Post: <mailto:tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tuhs>,
 <mailto:tuhs-request@minnie.tuhs.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org
Sender: "TUHS" <tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org>

Paul Winalski <paul.winalski@gmail.com> wrote:

> So I'm curious as to what the rationale was for Unix to have been
> designed with basic I/O being blocking rather than asynchronous.

I don't doubt that it was "simplify, simplify, simplify". Async I/O
is much messier than Unix's read/write model. The Unix model was
simpler to design, simpler to code, simpler to get right, and undoubtedly
took much less OS code than an async model would have; on the PDP-11
that would have mattered.

Also, the early Unixs were on smaller -11s, not the /45 or /70 with
split I&D space and the ability to address lost more RAM.

My guess, anyway. :-)

Arnold