|
Nomnom Cookie posted:u can also use a datagram socket
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Gazpacho posted:regardless you're only solving one of the three goals that i mentioned for COM and doing that badly compared to jumping through a thunk directly into another object's code the goals you mentioned are bad and not worth striving for. they were forced on OLE and later COM by the extremely limited platform 16-bit windows provided
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:windows has datagrams? ya its called udp (user datagram protocol)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
i seriously have no idea what UDP is and how it different from TCP i've looked it up a bunch of times but it's too much for my tiny brain
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:COM does what it says on the tin DCOM failed to do what it said on the tin, which is why we have .NET: a non-C calling convention that actually works tiny wrinkle: why the gently caress won't C++ users call in/out of our new, awesome calling convention?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
chumpchous posted:i seriously have no idea what UDP is and how it different from TCP udp doesn't have connections. you send datagrams which are telegrams made of electrons. sometimes datagrams get dropped on the floor of the datagram office and no one notices or cares. you can also tell the kernel you want to receive datagrams and maybe you will tcp has connections. it creates two virtual tubes, one for sending bytes and one for receiving bytes. it doesn't make sense for a byte to fall out of the tube or arrive out of order, because the tubes are only wide enough for one byte at a time, so tcp has to do some bookkeeping to make sure the tubes work right both are built on top of ip. ip packets are an ip address + data and you can send packets and you can receive packets. ip doesn't do ordering, connections, retransmission, any of that stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
btw the "series of tubes" guy was basically correct and talking about ip networks and congestion, except it was extremely non-technical language. it pisses me off because someone tried really hard to get this old fart senator to understand the internet and pretty much succeeded, then the old fart got made fun of for having a better understanding of the internet than at least 95% of the USA
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
Nomnom Cookie posted:btw the "series of tubes" guy was basically correct and talking about ip networks and congestion, except it was extremely non-technical language. it pisses me off because someone tried really hard to get this old fart senator to understand the internet and pretty much succeeded, then the old fart got made fun of for having a better understanding of the internet than at least 95% of the USA
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:28
|
|
|
Nomnom Cookie posted:ya its called udp (user datagram protocol) yeah except why would i use that for ipc. why cant i get unix domain sockets on windows
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:31
|
|
|
Nomnom Cookie posted:btw the "series of tubes" guy was basically correct and talking about ip networks and congestion, except it was extremely non-technical language. it pisses me off because someone tried really hard to get this old fart senator to understand the internet and pretty much succeeded, then the old fart got made fun of for having a better understanding of the internet than at least 95% of the USA ya. especially cause the people who made fun of him know even less about the internet. they don't have zero understanding, they have an incorrect understanding. see also: network neutrality.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:36
|
|
|
Suspicious Dish posted:yeah except why would i use that for ipc. why cant i get unix domain sockets on windows because windows devs get proxies and stubs instead. enjoy
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
boner
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
Windows has message oriented "Unix domain sockets" and has had them for a while, they're just called "named pipes". Bonus is they also work across networks if you use UNC paths (Why is UNC in Android's dictionary) They have credential passing too although I don't know if they have FD passing. Probably not since windows doesnt really "do" fds. (FD is auto capitalised too? Oh god)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
Is CIFS also in androids dictionary?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 12:32
|
|
|
*checks* Nope 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 12:38
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:(Why is UNC in Android's dictionary) someone at google likes good basketball
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 13:02
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:hiring ray ozzie as chief architect was a mistake but joel remains ignorant, he would never say anything good about live mesh because he believes the idea of network file systems is fundamentally wrong does he have an alternative suggestion?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
use corba
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 15:31
|
|
|
use cobra
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 15:51
|
|
|
cobra insurance sucks but its better than nothing
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:05
|
|
|
polpotpi posted:cobra insurance sucks but its better than nothing yes just let me pay $300/mo for insurance
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:09
|
|
|
so nomnom i gave your suggestion some reflection and no, it's an absolutely terrible idea, you're proposing that data should be marshaled every time a call is made from one object to another even within the same thread, in an app of any size like IE or word that happens constantly so congrats on destroying performance with a million memory copies. thank god for COM
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
chumpchous posted:i seriously have no idea what UDP is and how it different from TCP I'd tell you a UDP joke but you might not get it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:16
|
|
|
Otto Skorzeny posted:use cobra be careful what u wish for http://cobra-language.com/
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:18
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:I'd tell you a UDP joke but you might not get it. boooo
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 16:20
|
|
|
Gazpacho posted:so nomnom i gave your suggestion some reflection and no, it's an absolutely terrible idea, you're proposing that data should be marshaled every time a call is made from one object to another even within the same thread, in an app of any size like IE or word that happens constantly so congrats on destroying performance with a million memory copies. thank god for COM no im saying com is terrible and solves problems that don't need to be solved. c calling convention + sockets does the same thing but more simply
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:38
|
|
|
graph posted:yes just let me pay $300/mo for insurance ur gonna wish you had when your in the hospital with your arm swole up to 18in diameter from a cobra bite
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
SAHChandler posted:be careful what u wish for http://cobra-language.com/ Ooooo, that actually looks quite nice at first glance.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:52
|
|
|
urgh, .Net runtime.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
But yeah, optional typing with inference, first class tests, contracts, exception post-mortems, non-nillable types. I am genuinely excited by this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
Zombywuf posted:But yeah, optional typing with inference, first class tests, contracts, exception post-mortems, non-nillable types. I am genuinely excited by this. code:
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
graph posted:yes just let me pay $300/mo for insurance yes please, where can i get this $300/mo insurance
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:15
|
|
|
dur posted:yes please, where can i get this $300/mo insurance you have to lose your job
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 18:22
|
|
|
graph posted:you have to lose your job
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:I'd tell you a UDP joke but you might not get it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:Windows has message oriented "Unix domain sockets" and has had them for a while, they're just called "named pipes". Bonus is they also work across networks if you use UNC paths And still no support for integrating into an event loop. Microsoft really loves the proactor pattern.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
MrMoo posted:And still no support for integrating into an event loop. Microsoft really loves the proactor pattern.  CreateNamedPipe returns a HANDLE, surely you can just WaitForMultipleObjects on it or use an IO completion port or whatever? Don't get me wrong it's still a dogshit API in the finest tradition of Win32 but I'm surprised something that simple can't be made to work. Then again, this is the OS that didn't have condition variables until 2007.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:17
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:I'd tell you a UDP joke but you might not get it. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:37
|
|
|
Mr Dog posted:Then again, this is the OS that didn't have condition variables until 2007. wait what?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 22:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 23:31 |
|
|
Nomnom Cookie posted:both are built on top of ip. ip packets are an ip address + data and you can send packets and you can receive packets. ip doesn't do ordering, connections, retransmission, any of that stuff raw ip is totally dead. if your traffic doesn't have a tcp/udp port number, or an icmp type field, it will 100% certainly be dropped at the firewall this is why all new protocols are built on top of either tcp or udp there is no point in pretending that we can pass ip traffic that isn't wrapped in one or the other. e.g. why isn't sctp popular
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2013 23:05
|
|