From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <02dd92e7f247c9cee35214d2c72f5815@proxima.alt.za> To: 9fans@9fans.net Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:22:15 +0200 From: lucio@proxima.alt.za In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc not an option for Plan9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 32727546-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 All below is opinion, possibly uninformed. > Is there a standardised GUI binding for go, somthing cross-platform? > Not yet, although I think the pressure is building. At the moment, from where I am, it seems that a lot of development relies on interfacing with a web browser and there are a few specialised packages that interface with the conventional Unix toolkits (GTK, etc.). These last are not, in my opinion, cross-platform (enough). > Is there any concensus as go could be used on bare metal or is that > just un-realistic given garbage collection and the relatively large > runtime. > I have seen no sign of this, but here I think Rob is right, the hardware is moving into the cross-hairs, rather than Go bend over to it. The ARM A13 and A10 as well as the AVRs have shown that big CPU feature footprint does not have to mean a big physical footprint. Maybe the contrary applies. The GPUs puzzle me in this context, but I'm not sure how relevant they are. > has there been discussion on how some of the runtime could be moved into > a go-specific OS - would that even be a good/interesting idea? > It's something that struck me recently too. Go as it stands is not ideal for operating system development and there has been discussion of how the runtime and especially the garbage collector could be redesigned for bare metal, but I think the demand needs to become more shrill before the design can become more than just a concept. ++L