Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!natinst!davoli
From: davoli@natinst.com (Russell Davoli)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.system
Subject: Re: True Multitasking, True Object-oriented, True anything.
Message-ID: <18829@natinst.natinst.com>
Date: 25 Jan 91 19:59:51 GMT
References: <6082@stpstn.UUCP> <1991Jan22.035748.275@d.cs.okstate.edu> <1991Jan22.082018.14641@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>
Organization: National Instruments, Austin, TX
Lines: 37

In article <1991Jan22.082018.14641@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu>, jxf@orion.cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain) writes:
> 
> I would agree with this argument, except for one thing.  The term
> "multitasking," I believe, is derived from the feature of Ada to
> allow the programmer to establish separate threads of control.
> 
> The Ada term for a thread is a "task."  Thus, I believe, the term
> multitasking was coined from the multiple-tasking feature of Ada.
> This use of "multitasking" is synonymous to Mr. Minich's definition
> of "multithreading" (as it should be).
> 

I don't know about this.  I've been out of school about a year and half, and
in the OS course I took the last semester, the prof never mentioned Ada in
relation to the term "multitasking".  Like a number of other posters recently,
I'd be really surprised if the origin of the term can be attributed to Ada,
esp. since Ada is relative newcomer on the scene (isn't the language only
6 or so years old).  I'm inclined to believe that Ada took the term and
narrowed the definition to apply to a language construct.

Don't get me wrong, I'm just as tired of these terminology arguments as
everybody else is and couldn't be happier if we'd just agree on something.
I think you're definitions are good ones, but we're still stuck with all the
popular definition now that popular computing magazines are talking about
this, in article like "Why you need Windows multitasking" or some such
like.  (I picked on Windows because it's new, but I'm sure I've seen articles
of this ilk about MultiFinder when it showed up.) 

Anyway, this wasn't intended as a flame, and I'm sorry if you feel singed.
I just felt putting my $.02 worth in.

Russell Davoli
National Instruments Corp.

C
C
popular defi