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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 16915 invoked from network); 2 Jun 2020 18:57:54 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 2 Jun 2020 18:57:54 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 903349CAD7; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 04:57:49 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F10E49CAD2; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 04:57:28 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="QqDl7KiQ"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C10929CA44; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 04:57:01 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vs1-f46.google.com (mail-vs1-f46.google.com [209.85.217.46]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F7FA9C96B for ; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 04:57:01 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vs1-f46.google.com with SMTP id k13so2643088vsm.13 for ; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:57:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=xYixuHfh42B1Ov2yvyKIL63NbXWM+3IslZ0vgzHakH4=; b=QqDl7KiQ+Yrt/mN07nuWSky/Jz26LZGA8QQH6S7JuxCOjJsXP4gQbp9ywDogXKrBKn KZk289FJaBJLf78RMSvaYAyhI4kKG9lLKuRDH0ovhjqV4KtQWdOvo0Uk1dey+QvsSVNh V6KPJ1oK+Z5b0MKvdKws10wN3lKmN69Wan96Ck3ozxBf2kE7WKq28zj3cIITUxy4/NKL zJw/TiDoaVvmiWB8MTO79J2EmuomRuAtkd6qut9wFARKm4trGY5Ayp99X8ovVmaI2rYO OUQsGmYUQJ1SpjxVGvSaJ/jFKXYfXJOTXyie/84gePA2Fgvkz6lnLPZIDnh5o0gt2r9t glhA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xYixuHfh42B1Ov2yvyKIL63NbXWM+3IslZ0vgzHakH4=; b=F5SJiF+qQdPqc9ECwEovR9j3gRJxWnB5zwQA32Rw4M055Ve9gky5XUqrQugy7F6I6/ bDhZOjT4a04JYUCN38VkvFYcdnVD2UzMZjSVwewzWJHEBg6rB+hFazmSqozS71/zuDVp b7RJsJOdnH6NTn8nTtv2u3gzaIC7FcHPCyYTC8nP++U/XxKVLlr8wW0b7gj3o5qyNrfV ntBvy5uO3dRLxvcTGTMJKOCtstOADcYur9XUHNT7p+x/jyId8EFMPqZCHlUDYR/17bT5 gRWjS40IeIdxsLvBRSZp+heypXdAnH4SHGTA2++/q+/O7zoSPONgRpvTaqnL8Z5a0BhF QsMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531s84AhZIb3e54vOTeuBRg9NLK8aJxDjakhaWLUHjSfDzxIvj5Q YJSbDtJSfgWpPysbZ7gy0bKr5FZcGgc9B8OcXrX2Fw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzW0ZvM/c9/amRtoNJhRJHTer8k6QDcLL1KMSVtcd8/8MUorWaWxqWOXN52693bqbVmPOu+AYm/L67QWOwjtc8= X-Received: by 2002:a67:22c7:: with SMTP id i190mr5161842vsi.179.1591124220671; Tue, 02 Jun 2020 11:57:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 2002:ab0:2b92:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Tue, 2 Jun 2020 11:56:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Paul Winalski Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2020 14:56:59 -0400 Message-ID: To: Dan Cross Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On 6/2/20, Dan Cross wrote: > > My response at the time was to question whether asynchrony itself remains > untamed, as Doug put it, or if rather it has proved difficult to retrofit > asynchrony onto a system designed around fundamentally synchronous > primitives? I think that's a very good question. It's analogous to record-oriented I/O vs. byte stream I/O. It's easy to build record-oriented I/O on top of a byte stream, but it's a real bear to do it the other way around. Similarly, it's easy to build synchronous I/O on top of asynchronous I/O but the reverse ends up looking contrived. -Paul W.