Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech Subject: Re: resource tracking Message-ID: <5219@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 28 Feb 90 13:28:48 GMT References: <1165@lpami.wimsey.bc.ca> <5214@sugar.hackercorp.com> <23118@usc.edu> Reply-To: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 21 > I am not sure that the problem lies in the fact that IPC is done with > messages or not. No, it doesn't matter if IPC is done with postcards or post office boxes, either. It complicates things whatever way you do it. MS Windows is widely regarded as an incredibly hard environment to program in (I just saw a joke on the net: "What's bigger than Hello World in X?" "Hello World in Microsoft Windows!"). There are better examples of safe message passing systems... Mach being a good example. > it is not the "method" that might be faulty, but the implementation. A better implementation is certainly possible, but it's still a hard problem. Going back to post office boxes, there are thousands of unclaimed PO boxes ever year, as well as bank accounts and so on. It's a hard problem in the real world as well... -- _--_|\ Peter da Silva . / \ \_.--._/ I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'