[9front] Is 9front Generally Considered To Be The Successor To Plan9?

[9front] Is 9front Generally Considered To Be The Successor To Plan9?

[Jay F. Shachter]

This is a 9front mailing list, to which Plan9 questions are routinely
asked (e.g., "What is the Plan 9 equivalent of uname?").

Is 9front widely considered to be the successor to Plan9, in the sense
that, e.g., Fortran90 is the successor to Fortran77, such that answers
descriptive of Fortran90 can be given to a question about "Fortran"?
Similarly, can an answer descriptive of 9front be given to a question
about Plan9?  Or are there other incompatible operating systems that
claim to be the successor to Plan9?

(Parenthetically, and completely off-topic for this mailing list, the
most recent standardized version of Fortran is Fortran2023, but does
anyone in the real world actually use a version of Fortran that is
less than 34 years old?)

                        Jay F. Shachter
                        6424 North Whipple Street
                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
                                (1-773)7613784   landline
                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
                                jay@m5.chicago.il.us
                                http://m5.chicago.il.us

                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"

[9front] Re: [9front] Is 9front Generally Considered To Be The Successor To Plan9?

[Stanley Lieber]

On March 10, 2024 7:01:38 PM EDT, "Jay F. Shachter" <jay@m5.chicago.il.us> wrote:
>
>This is a 9front mailing list, to which Plan9 questions are routinely
>asked (e.g., "What is the Plan 9 equivalent of uname?").
>
>Is 9front widely considered to be the successor to Plan9, in the sense
>that, e.g., Fortran90 is the successor to Fortran77, such that answers
>descriptive of Fortran90 can be given to a question about "Fortran"?
>Similarly, can an answer descriptive of 9front be given to a question
>about Plan9?  Or are there other incompatible operating systems that
>claim to be the successor to Plan9?
>
>(Parenthetically, and completely off-topic for this mailing list, the
>most recent standardized version of Fortran is Fortran2023, but does
>anyone in the real world actually use a version of Fortran that is
>less than 34 years old?)
>
>                        Jay F. Shachter
>                        6424 North Whipple Street
>                        Chicago IL  60645-4111
>                                (1-773)7613784   landline
>                                (1-410)9964737   GoogleVoice
>                                jay@m5.chicago.il.us
>                                http://m5.chicago.il.us
>
>                        "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"
>
>

there's no official anything, and nobody writing 9front code really cares about names. 9front forked from bell labs plan 9 in 2011. the concepts, and most of the features remain the same. it's probay fine to refer to any of the existing forks of bell labs plan 9 as plan 9, especially since the ones that diverged widely enough to raise objections have mostly ceased to be developed.

sl

Re: [9front] Is 9front Generally Considered To Be The Successor To Plan9?

[Kurt H Maier]

On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 06:01:38PM -0500, Jay F. Shachter wrote:
> 
> This is a 9front mailing list, to which Plan9 questions are routinely
> asked (e.g., "What is the Plan 9 equivalent of uname?").
> 
> Is 9front widely considered to be the successor to Plan9, in the sense
> that, e.g., Fortran90 is the successor to Fortran77, such that answers
> descriptive of Fortran90 can be given to a question about "Fortran"?
> Similarly, can an answer descriptive of 9front be given to a question
> about Plan9?  Or are there other incompatible operating systems that
> claim to be the successor to Plan9?

Fortan has a standards body.  Plan 9 does not.  I don't believe 9front
is generally considered at all, much less generally considered to be
anything.

> (Parenthetically, and completely off-topic for this mailing list, the
> most recent standardized version of Fortran is Fortran2023, but does
> anyone in the real world actually use a version of Fortran that is
> less than 34 years old?)

Yes.  The E3SM model uses Fortran95 with a subset of Fortran2003. 

khm

Re: [9front] Is 9front Generally Considered To Be The Successor To Plan9?

[ori]

Quoth Jay F. Shachter <jay@m5.chicago.il.us>:
> 
> This is a 9front mailing list, to which Plan9 questions are routinely
> asked (e.g., "What is the Plan 9 equivalent of uname?").
> 
> Is 9front widely considered to be the successor to Plan9, in the sense
> that, e.g., Fortran90 is the successor to Fortran77, such that answers
> descriptive of Fortran90 can be given to a question about "Fortran"?

Depends who's answering. Why do you care?

Re: [9front] Is 9front Generally Considered To Be The Successor To Plan9?

[hiro]

> Is 9front widely considered to be the successor to Plan9, in the sense

no.
the problem is that plan9 is not widely considered in the first place.
of the few people that heard about plan9, i suspect fewer have heard
about 9front. this is a testament to the stability of this ecosystem.
C code is portable, between architectures, and also between plan9
forks.