Comments on: Windows networking woes

By: hoa

hoa — Tue, 08 Mar 2005 08:23:31 +0000

You meant that kernel/user separation is not good :) ?
multiplying system calls in general will be a waste of CPU cycles.
long life to (ms?-)DOS :)

By: alfons hoogervorst

alfons hoogervorst — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:40:52 +0000

The network stack buffers too (unless you ioctl() it). So sending one byte a time is a waste of CPU cycles. Time it. :-)

By: Colin

Colin — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:10:52 +0000

From the lame list:
# Single byte send()s and recv()s.
Festering in a pool of lameness.

I fail to see why, and proudly do it until optimization time has come :-)

By: Colin

Colin — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 09:07:55 +0000

Thanks, I had found the site, but missed the lame list :-)

By: alfons

alfons — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:34:53 +0000

You may want to look at sockets.com; this site has been there since the standardisation of WinSock 1.x, and the domain’s owner, Bob Quinn, was a founding member of WinSock.
If you really need a very quick overview of WinSock and potential pitfalls, check the lame list.

By: alfons

alfons — Fri, 04 Feb 2005 19:24:37 +0000

Ah, but then, you don’t know the history of WinSock.
WinSock was an API introduced by a who’s who of network-related companies who needed a common API for networking. Microsoft was one of those companies, and seeing and realizing the popularity of the API, it was one of its implementors. Ofcourse it included its stack for free in its OS, and the rest is history.
The originators of the WinSock API stayed very close to the BSD sockets API – most of those people had a BSD/UNIX background. Almost all differences between WinSock and BSD sockets are because of the limitations of WinSock’s first platform.
In Win32 sockets are actually file handles, and they are closed when a process closes.