[MUD-Dev] Sockets

[Caliban Tiresias Darklock]

On 12:30 AM 5/12/99 +00-05, I personally witnessed Jon A. Lambert jumping
up to say:
>
>Yes. This is true.  Asynchronous sockets require you to use the Windows 
>messaging system.  Thus they cannot be used from a console application.

Not altogether true... any Windows program can have one (and only one)
console. So you can write a GUI application that HAS NO VISIBLE GUI and
instead uses console I/O for input and output. This gives you pretty much
the best of both worlds; you can create windows and just not display them.
This way, you get all the Windows stuff without having to use the normal
methods of writing the screen or creating an expectation of a WYSIWYG
interface. 

Now, agreed, you have to drop down to barebones API level programming to do
this... but hey, it *can* be done. ;)

>I KNOW that threading I/O  performs better on Win32.  
>The question is "Does threading I/O perform better on Linux/BSD?"
>    
>If someone would ACTUALLY DO IT in Linux/BSD, perhaps the question could 
>be answered rather than theorized at.

Hey, screw these people! We Windows MUD programmers should go off and start
our OWN little group! That way we won't have to listen to other opinions! ;)

Incidentally, I'm going to be porting my server's Windows codebase over to
one or more flavors of UNIX (Linux, and anything else it turns out to
compile properly under), so if I do threads (which I may not) we'll have
something to benchmark. 

Oddly, nobody has ever written much of anything anywhere about porting from
Windows to UNIX. I have UNIX to Windows information all over the place, but... 

-----
| Caliban Tiresias Darklock            caliban at darklock.com 
| Darklock Communications          http://www.darklock.com/ 
| U L T I M A T E   U N I V E R S E   I S   N O T   D E A D 
| 774577496C6C6E457645727355626D4974H       -=CABAL::3146=- 


_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev maillist  -  MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
http://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev