Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!panix!.POSTED.spitfire.i.gajendra.net!not-for-mail
From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.written,comp.lang.fortran,comp.lang.c++,alt.comp.lang.rust,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=80=9CThe?= end of software secrecy is almost upon
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2026 16:17:40 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Message-ID: <11bla34$fid$1@reader2.panix.com>
References: <11amvre$15far$1@dont-email.me> <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me> <11bl0i2$8cd$1@reader2.panix.com> <11bl9qm$10h8f$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2026 16:17:40 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader2.panix.com; posting-host="spitfire.i.gajendra.net:166.84.136.80"; logging-data="15949"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@panix.com"
X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010)
Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross)
Xref: csiph.com rec.arts.sf.written:661485 comp.lang.fortran:126986 comp.lang.c++:125341 alt.comp.lang.rust:436 alt.folklore.computers:236046

In article <11bl9qm$10h8f$1@dont-email.me>,  <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 13:34:58 -0000 (UTC)
>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled:
>>In article <11bkfcc$104cc$1@dont-email.me>,  <boltar@caprica.universe> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 25 Oct 2026 00:28:19 -0000 (UTC)
>>>cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) gabbled:
>>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>No, it isn't. How similar do you think the posix and windows threading
>>>model/api are? Yet somehow C++ provides a common wrapper for both. There is
>>>no reason the same can't be done for processes and your irrelevant waffle
>>>about past issues of threading on *nix don't change that.
>>
>>You didn't answer my questions.
>>
>>What do you think that a "thread" is?
>>What do you think that a "process" is?
>
>Stop playing games - you don't get to answer a question with a question.

In other words, you don't know.

>Given I've been programming on unix for over 30 years and have written dozens
>of applications using multi process and multi threading and sometimes using both
>I'm quite well aware of the differences. Perhaps you arn't which is why you
>need me to tell you. Well go do your own research.

I'm quite sure you don't actually know.

>In the meantime I'll ask one last time - why do you think C++ can provide
>a threading wrapper API but not a multi process one?

You've got system(), right?  What, precisely, do you want this
"multi process" API to look like?

>Take your time.

If you want a serious answer, you've got to define your terms.

	- Dan C.