From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@labs.coraid.com>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 12:49:37 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <0efa6720b22c45b0ee9ab7cdb10c5968@coraid.com>
In-Reply-To: <03BB70B9-8ED4-4A39-B19E-2B0481DEBC13@gmail.com>
References: <CAHwE2-ud2QqO6yKzcLq=cv4WL==C6xOC56N1HH3gN=EquYmP4A@mail.gmail.com>
	<03BB70B9-8ED4-4A39-B19E-2B0481DEBC13@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Go for systems programming
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 59722f10-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> In its own niche is the important point here.  Just because writing a
> kernel or system utilities can be done in Go doesn't mean it should
> be.  Go isn't even totally stable or feature complete on Plan 9 at
> this point.  You get the same shit in C on Plan 9 as you do Go plus
> it's more stable and has better support.  At this point I would say
> keep using C unless you have some specific need to use Go on Plan 9.

if you rewrote a kernel in go, i don't think you'd want something that
is exactly plan 9.

- erik