9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [9fans] Ruby port
@ 2007-11-11 20:44 Christopher Nielsen
  2007-11-11 20:54 ` Pietro Gagliardi
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Christopher Nielsen @ 2007-11-11 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

Anyone porting ruby? Would anyone besides me use it?

I have about five months of free time to work on projects.

-- 
Christopher Nielsen
"They who can give up essential liberty for temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Ruby port
  2007-11-11 20:44 [9fans] Ruby port Christopher Nielsen
@ 2007-11-11 20:54 ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-12  5:28 ` ron minnich
  2007-12-02 22:55 ` [9fans] " Kim Shrier
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-11 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

I was actually thinking that on my way home today. Perhaps I could  
make a subset of the language - I already have a good knowledge of  
implementing interpreters, so how hard would it be to make an object- 
oriented language? :-)

On Nov 11, 2007, at 3:44 PM, Christopher Nielsen wrote:

> Anyone porting ruby? Would anyone besides me use it?
>
> I have about five months of free time to work on projects.
>
> -- 
> Christopher Nielsen
> "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary
> safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Ruby port
  2007-11-11 20:44 [9fans] Ruby port Christopher Nielsen
  2007-11-11 20:54 ` Pietro Gagliardi
@ 2007-11-12  5:28 ` ron minnich
  2007-11-12 14:19   ` David Leimbach
  2007-11-12 15:40   ` [9fans] " prem
  2007-12-02 22:55 ` [9fans] " Kim Shrier
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2007-11-12  5:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On 11/11/07, Christopher Nielsen <cnielsen@pobox.com> wrote:
> Anyone porting ruby? Would anyone besides me use it?
>

depends on how far you want to dig. I think Ruby might be neat, but if
there is any one thing that a number of us think is desperately
needed, it is a blessed gcc port for plan 9 -- a gcc port that is
integrated back into the gcc tree.

Or, same thing for python. Or, sure, ruby. But what's most needed is
the port, plus, integration back into mainline. At least I think so.

ron


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Ruby port
  2007-11-12  5:28 ` ron minnich
@ 2007-11-12 14:19   ` David Leimbach
  2007-11-12 15:40   ` [9fans] " prem
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: David Leimbach @ 2007-11-12 14:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 11, 2007 9:28 PM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/11/07, Christopher Nielsen <cnielsen@pobox.com> wrote:
> > Anyone porting ruby? Would anyone besides me use it?
> >
>
> depends on how far you want to dig. I think Ruby might be neat, but if
> there is any one thing that a number of us think is desperately
> needed, it is a blessed gcc port for plan 9 -- a gcc port that is
> integrated back into the gcc tree.

Anyone looked into LLVM with the gcc front end?  There's a non-gcc
front-end for it as well.

>
> Or, same thing for python. Or, sure, ruby. But what's most needed is
> the port, plus, integration back into mainline. At least I think so.
>
> ron
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12  5:28 ` ron minnich
  2007-11-12 14:19   ` David Leimbach
@ 2007-11-12 15:40   ` prem
  2007-11-12 19:01     ` ron minnich
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: prem @ 2007-11-12 15:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

At least it needs c++ compiler to compile. This could be possible with
ported gcc/g++. but LLVM site quote many versions of gcc miscompiling
LLVM
It is nice to see gcc 4.x in the gcc for plan9 ( my guess it doesn't
exists and nobody is bothered to do it ). It would be really nice to
see LLVM on Plan9

> Anyone looked into LLVM with the gcc front end?  There's a non-gcc
> front-end for it as well.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 15:40   ` [9fans] " prem
@ 2007-11-12 19:01     ` ron minnich
  2007-11-12 19:39       ` Steve Simon
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2007-11-12 19:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 12, 2007 7:40 AM, prem <prem.mallappa@gmail.com> wrote:
> At least it needs c++ compiler to compile. This could be possible with
> ported gcc/g++. but LLVM site quote many versions of gcc miscompiling
> LLVM
> It is nice to see gcc 4.x in the gcc for plan9 ( my guess it doesn't
> exists and nobody is bothered to do it ). It would be really nice to
> see LLVM on Plan9

Fact is gcc is a de-facto standard, and you either have it, and can
run stuff like LLVM, or you don't.

that's life.

ron


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 19:01     ` ron minnich
@ 2007-11-12 19:39       ` Steve Simon
  2007-11-12 21:39         ` Aki Nyrhinen
                           ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Steve Simon @ 2007-11-12 19:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> Fact is gcc is a de-facto standard

I'm still trying to understand exactly what you mean by this.

There was talk at one time about a gcc to kenc
preprocessor, this wouldn't solve the C++ problem
but would such a thing be worth attempting?

Have the c99 additions to kenc made such a
translator irrelevnt?

Is the "problem" more the lack of g++ and perhaps
glibc than the gcc C compiler itself or am I
missing somthing.

I'm not trolling, I want to know.

-Steve


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 19:39       ` Steve Simon
@ 2007-11-12 21:39         ` Aki Nyrhinen
  2007-11-12 22:39           ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-13  0:59         ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port Lyndon Nerenberg
  2007-11-14 19:05         ` ron minnich
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Aki Nyrhinen @ 2007-11-12 21:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

in my limited experience, converting programs that are
not excercises in how to use all the possible peculiarities
of posix are reasonably easy to get compiling under ape.

the problem is, nobody wants reasonably easy.

c++ would be very nice too, so there would be one step
less on the road towards firefox. i'm sure ron is more
interested in fortran90.

On Nov 12, 2007 9:39 PM, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:
> > Fact is gcc is a de-facto standard
>
> I'm still trying to understand exactly what you mean by this.
>
> There was talk at one time about a gcc to kenc
> preprocessor, this wouldn't solve the C++ problem
> but would such a thing be worth attempting?
>
> Have the c99 additions to kenc made such a
> translator irrelevnt?
>
> Is the "problem" more the lack of g++ and perhaps
> glibc than the gcc C compiler itself or am I
> missing somthing.
>
> I'm not trolling, I want to know.
>
> -Steve
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 21:39         ` Aki Nyrhinen
@ 2007-11-12 22:39           ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-12 23:21             ` Steve Simon
                               ` (5 more replies)
  0 siblings, 6 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-12 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Aki Nyrhinen wrote:

> in my limited experience, converting programs that are
> not excercises in how to use all the possible peculiarities
> of posix are reasonably easy to get compiling under ape.
>
> the problem is, nobody wants reasonably easy.

And yet everyone elsewhere wants easy. Did I step into another  
reality distortion field?

>
> c++ would be very nice too, so there would be one step
> less on the road towards firefox. i'm sure ron is more
> interested in fortran90.
>

People are working on it. In fact, someone said something about an  
update to the second edition C++ preprocessor a few days/weeks ago.  
Who uses Fortran 90? I haven't seen any F90 compiler in wide use; the  
FSF is still working with F77.

Who said anything about Firefox? The guy that made abaco also ported  
the SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine to Plan 9, perhaps we could build  
off of that? And how easy would it be to add a basic CSS?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 22:39           ` Pietro Gagliardi
@ 2007-11-12 23:21             ` Steve Simon
  2007-11-12 23:32             ` William Josephson
                               ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Steve Simon @ 2007-11-12 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> People are working on it. In fact, someone said something about an  
> update to the second edition C++ preprocessor a few days/weeks ago.  

That was me - however I must emphasise, cfront is certinly interesting, 
but not very useful for compiling modern code. It could be made
better (more up-to-date libraries) but this would be a significant
piece of work, porting another compiler is probably a much better
way to get a useful C++ compiler.

If somone had the money to throw at the problem an alternative route
to g++ might be the Edison Design Group C++ front end, (available from
Comeau Computing, who have even implemented it as a C++ to C translator).
It claims to support all the modern idioms (including g++isms). This is
cheap to buy once ported ($50). Sadly the first port would cost several orders
more than that. Just wishful thinking.
 
> Who uses Fortran 90? 

I beleive the supercomputing crowd use it quite a bit.

> Who said anything about Firefox? The guy that made abaco also ported  
> the SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine to Plan 9, perhaps we could build  
> off of that? And how easy would it be to add a basic CSS?

I should let Federico speak for himself, however my understanding is
this is a lot more work than you might expect.

-Steve


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 22:39           ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-12 23:21             ` Steve Simon
@ 2007-11-12 23:32             ` William Josephson
  2007-11-12 23:55               ` Charles Forsyth
  2007-11-13  0:27             ` Aki Nyrhinen
                               ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: William Josephson @ 2007-11-12 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 05:39:17PM -0500, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
> Who uses Fortran 90? I haven't seen any F90 compiler in wide use; the  
> FSF is still working with F77.

Actually, a lot of scientists seem to use Fortran 90.
Current versions of gfortran support (most of?) Fortran 95.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 23:55               ` Charles Forsyth
@ 2007-11-12 23:52                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-13  0:00                 ` William K. Josephson
                                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-12 23:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 12, 2007, at 6:55 PM, Charles Forsyth wrote:

>> Actually, a lot of scientists seem to use Fortran 90.
>> Current versions of gfortran support (most of?) Fortran 95.
>
> i'm hoping that eventually there will be good languages
> for scientists to use, but given that many C/C++ users migrated
> to Java, perhaps the traffic is quite often in the wrong direction.
>
> more seriously, what are the statistics for the use of programming
> systems in scientific applications?
>

Hopefully, when I finish it, my hoc will be both a mathematical and a  
scientific haven. Sure, it can't compute the atomic mass of an up  
quark, but it can eventually be used to calculate orbits of far-away  
planetary bodies (once I learn calculus :-))


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 23:32             ` William Josephson
@ 2007-11-12 23:55               ` Charles Forsyth
  2007-11-12 23:52                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
                                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Charles Forsyth @ 2007-11-12 23:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> Actually, a lot of scientists seem to use Fortran 90.
> Current versions of gfortran support (most of?) Fortran 95.

i'm hoping that eventually there will be good languages
for scientists to use, but given that many C/C++ users migrated
to Java, perhaps the traffic is quite often in the wrong direction.

more seriously, what are the statistics for the use of programming
systems in scientific applications?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 23:55               ` Charles Forsyth
  2007-11-12 23:52                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
@ 2007-11-13  0:00                 ` William K. Josephson
  2007-11-13  0:53                 ` Joel C. Salomon
  2007-11-14 21:50                 ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port y i y u s
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: William K. Josephson @ 2007-11-13  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 11:55:02PM +0000, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> > Actually, a lot of scientists seem to use Fortran 90.
> > Current versions of gfortran support (most of?) Fortran 95.
> 
> i'm hoping that eventually there will be good languages
> for scientists to use, but given that many C/C++ users migrated
> to Java, perhaps the traffic is quite often in the wrong direction.
> 
> more seriously, what are the statistics for the use of programming
> systems in scientific applications?

I haven't a clue as I don't interact much with the scientific
computing crowd.  Fortran is still the de facto standard for
a variety of reasons.  Despite the plethora of scripting languages,
the barriers to entry for a new programming language are really
quite high.  


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 22:39           ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-12 23:21             ` Steve Simon
  2007-11-12 23:32             ` William Josephson
@ 2007-11-13  0:27             ` Aki Nyrhinen
  2007-11-13  0:33             ` David Leimbach
                               ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Aki Nyrhinen @ 2007-11-13  0:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 13, 2007 12:39 AM, Pietro Gagliardi <pietro10@mac.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Aki Nyrhinen wrote:
> > the problem is, nobody wants reasonably easy.
> And yet everyone elsewhere wants easy. Did I step into another
> reality distortion field?

distortion or not, i was trying to say reasonably
easy is not easy enough.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 22:39           ` Pietro Gagliardi
                               ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2007-11-13  0:27             ` Aki Nyrhinen
@ 2007-11-13  0:33             ` David Leimbach
  2007-11-13  0:35             ` Aki Nyrhinen
  2007-11-13  0:50             ` [9fans] Fortran Lyndon Nerenberg
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: David Leimbach @ 2007-11-13  0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 12, 2007 2:39 PM, Pietro Gagliardi <pietro10@mac.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 4:39 PM, Aki Nyrhinen wrote:
>
> > in my limited experience, converting programs that are
> > not excercises in how to use all the possible peculiarities
> > of posix are reasonably easy to get compiling under ape.
> >
> > the problem is, nobody wants reasonably easy.
>
> And yet everyone elsewhere wants easy. Did I step into another
> reality distortion field?
>
> >
> > c++ would be very nice too, so there would be one step
> > less on the road towards firefox. i'm sure ron is more
> > interested in fortran90.
> >
>
> People are working on it. In fact, someone said something about an
> update to the second edition C++ preprocessor a few days/weeks ago.
> Who uses Fortran 90? I haven't seen any F90 compiler in wide use; the
> FSF is still working with F77.
>

I'm pretty sure gfortran does F90...


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 22:39           ` Pietro Gagliardi
                               ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2007-11-13  0:33             ` David Leimbach
@ 2007-11-13  0:35             ` Aki Nyrhinen
  2007-11-13  0:50             ` [9fans] Fortran Lyndon Nerenberg
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Aki Nyrhinen @ 2007-11-13  0:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

> People are working on it. In fact, someone said something about an
> update to the second edition C++ preprocessor a few days/weeks ago.
> Who uses Fortran 90? I haven't seen any F90 compiler in wide use; the
> FSF is still working with F77.

just because it's called g77 doesn't mean it isn't f90.

> Who said anything about Firefox? The guy that made abaco also ported
> the SpiderMonkey JavaScript engine to Plan 9, perhaps we could build
> off of that? And how easy would it be to add a basic CSS?

trust me, it's never easy.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-12 22:39           ` Pietro Gagliardi
                               ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2007-11-13  0:35             ` Aki Nyrhinen
@ 2007-11-13  0:50             ` Lyndon Nerenberg
  2007-11-13  0:52               ` erik quanstrom
  5 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2007-11-13  0:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs


On 2007-Nov-12, at 14:39 , Pietro Gagliardi wrote:

> I haven't seen any F90 compiler in wide use; the FSF is still  
> working with F77.

Solaris Sun Studio suite includes F90.  And as of a few months ago  
it's part of the base Solaris Express releases (along with cc, for the  
first time since 1990 or so).

--lyndon


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-13  0:50             ` [9fans] Fortran Lyndon Nerenberg
@ 2007-11-13  0:52               ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
                                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2007-11-13  0:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

wow!  if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris,
do you think gcc would have gotten where it did?

- erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 23:55               ` Charles Forsyth
  2007-11-12 23:52                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-13  0:00                 ` William K. Josephson
@ 2007-11-13  0:53                 ` Joel C. Salomon
  2007-11-13  0:57                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-14 21:50                 ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port y i y u s
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Joel C. Salomon @ 2007-11-13  0:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 12, 2007 6:55 PM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net> wrote:
> more seriously, what are the statistics for the use of programming
> systems in scientific applications?

In school and in one or two places where I've had engineering
internships, MATLAB rules supreme.  A port of Octave might possibly be
useful.  (In my copious spare time, of course.)

--Joel


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-13  0:53                 ` Joel C. Salomon
@ 2007-11-13  0:57                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-13  1:32                     ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port ( off topic ) fernanbolando
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-13  0:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

One of my plans after completing my hoc is to add a GUI frontend  
exclusively for Plan 9 and call the resultant program hog.

On Nov 12, 2007, at 7:53 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:

> On Nov 12, 2007 6:55 PM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>  
> wrote:
>> more seriously, what are the statistics for the use of programming
>> systems in scientific applications?
>
> In school and in one or two places where I've had engineering
> internships, MATLAB rules supreme.  A port of Octave might possibly be
> useful.  (In my copious spare time, of course.)
>
> --Joel


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 19:39       ` Steve Simon
  2007-11-12 21:39         ` Aki Nyrhinen
@ 2007-11-13  0:59         ` Lyndon Nerenberg
  2007-11-13  1:23           ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
  2007-11-13  1:25           ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-14 19:05         ` ron minnich
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2007-11-13  0:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs


On 2007-Nov-12, at 11:39 , Steve Simon wrote:

> Is the "problem" more the lack of g++ and perhaps
> glibc than the gcc C compiler itself or am I
> missing somthing.

I find that > 90% of the problem is code that makes use of all the  
__(foo)__ attribute crud in function declarations.  It shouldn't be  
difficult to write a tool to strip that nonsense out.

Alternatively you could teach the compilers to recognize and ignore  
those constructs, but my personal preference is to just elide the bits  
from the source at import. Even ignoring them lends them more  
credibility than my morals allow ;-P

-lyndon


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-13  0:52               ` erik quanstrom
@ 2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
  2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
                                   ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2007-11-13  1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs


On 2007-Nov-12, at 16:52 , erik quanstrom wrote:

> wow!  if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris,
> do you think gcc would have gotten where it did?

Nope, GCC would have died a well-deserved death.

I was so pissed off at Sun for doing this (and the follow-on effect as  
all the other vendors got greedy) that I never again bought any  
hardware or software from them.  And this did result in them not  
winning a $500K+ bid that they otherwise would probably have won.

Now that they've come to their senses, I've just signed off to buy a  
pair of 4200 servers :-)

--lyndon


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-13  0:52               ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
@ 2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-13  1:48                   ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-13  1:12                 ` [9fans] Money, guns, and lawyers Lyndon Nerenberg
  2007-11-14 16:55                 ` [9fans] Fortran plan9
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-13  1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 12, 2007, at 7:52 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:

> wow!  if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris,
> do you think gcc would have gotten where it did?
>
> - erik

I think the thing that got gcc where it is is Linux, because it's  
probably the only tool that compiles it! Either that, or Apple's  
using it in Xcode.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* [9fans] Money, guns, and lawyers.
  2007-11-13  0:52               ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
  2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
@ 2007-11-13  1:12                 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
  2007-11-13  1:41                   ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-14 16:55                 ` [9fans] Fortran plan9
  3 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2007-11-13  1:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs


On 2007-Nov-12, at 16:52 , erik quanstrom wrote:

> wow!  if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris,
> do you think gcc would have gotten where it did?

In fact, the two events that most changed the face of Unix in the 90's  
were Sun's unbundling of cc and AT&T's attack on Net-1.  Imagine a  
world without lawyers and marketers and gcc and linux.  Sigh.

--lyndon


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-13  0:59         ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port Lyndon Nerenberg
@ 2007-11-13  1:23           ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
  2007-11-13  1:25           ` Pietro Gagliardi
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Hagen Paul Pfeifer @ 2007-11-13  1:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On 2007.11.13 Lyndon Nerenberg pressed the following keys:

>On 2007-Nov-12, at 11:39 , Steve Simon wrote:

>I find that > 90% of the problem is code that makes use of all the  
>__(foo)__ attribute crud in function declarations.  It shouldn't be  
>difficult to write a tool to strip that nonsense out.
>
>Alternatively you could teach the compilers to recognize and ignore  
>those constructs, but my personal preference is to just elide the bits  
>from the source at import. Even ignoring them lends them more  
>credibility than my morals allow ;-P

A lot of GNU/Linux packages utilize gcc attributes - maybe the cleaner way is
to let decide the compiler what to use or to ignore. It seems less stressful
as dropping an additional pre-processor in the build chain.

>-lyndon

HGN



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-13  0:59         ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port Lyndon Nerenberg
  2007-11-13  1:23           ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
@ 2007-11-13  1:25           ` Pietro Gagliardi
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-13  1:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

for (x in gcc/src/*.[chyl7s]) { # All this nonsense is simply to  
avoid useful and/or standard things like __FILE__ or __STDC__ */
	sed 's/__asm__//g
		s/__extension__//g
		s/__inline__//g
		s/__typeof__//g
		s/__restrict__//g
		s/__builtin_[a-zA-Z0-9_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*//g
		s/__cxa_atexit//g
		s/__cxa_get_exception_ptr//g
		s/__attribute__//g
		s/__null//g
		s/__strong//g
		s/__weak//g
		s/__int64//g' $x > $x^.new # keep going
	# note that we need a little extra work for __attribute__
	mv $x^.new $x
}

On Nov 12, 2007, at 7:59 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:

>
> On 2007-Nov-12, at 11:39 , Steve Simon wrote:
>
>> Is the "problem" more the lack of g++ and perhaps
>> glibc than the gcc C compiler itself or am I
>> missing somthing.
>
> I find that > 90% of the problem is code that makes use of all the  
> __(foo)__ attribute crud in function declarations.  It shouldn't be  
> difficult to write a tool to strip that nonsense out.
>
> Alternatively you could teach the compilers to recognize and ignore  
> those constructs, but my personal preference is to just elide the  
> bits from the source at import. Even ignoring them lends them more  
> credibility than my morals allow ;-P
>
> -lyndon


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port ( off topic )
  2007-11-13  0:57                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
@ 2007-11-13  1:32                     ` fernanbolando
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: fernanbolando @ 2007-11-13  1:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs, Pietro  Gagliardi

-----Original Message-----
From: Pietro Gagliardi <pietro10@mac.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2007 19:57:05 -0500
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port

> One of my plans after completing my hoc is to add a GUI frontend  
> exclusively for Plan 9 and call the resultant program hog.
> 
> On Nov 12, 2007, at 7:53 PM, Joel C. Salomon wrote:
> 
> > On Nov 12, 2007 6:55 PM, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>  
> > wrote:
> >> more seriously, what are the statistics for the use of programming
> >> systems in scientific applications?
> >
> > In school and in one or two places where I've had engineering
> > internships, MATLAB rules supreme.  A port of Octave might possibly
> be
> > useful.  (In my copious spare time, of course.)
> >
> > --Joel
> 

I got a few math libraries ported in my contrib that maybe you can use.
Along with a few more libraries I am trying to port. I will try to 
restart an old circuit simulation project. I used octave and matlab
for some simulations for work.
At home I am trying to do the matlab stuff using p9p 8c, hoc and awk.
 
I would rather see more more plan9 code get ported to linux than linux
code get ported to plan9. In this light a gcc is not the best option, I
guess an 8c tools is best.




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Money, guns, and lawyers.
  2007-11-13  1:12                 ` [9fans] Money, guns, and lawyers Lyndon Nerenberg
@ 2007-11-13  1:41                   ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-13  1:59                     ` Lyndon Nerenberg
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2007-11-13  1:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> In fact, the two events that most changed the face of Unix in the 90's  
> were Sun's unbundling of cc and AT&T's attack on Net-1.  Imagine a  
> world without lawyers and marketers and gcc and linux.  Sigh.
> 
> --lyndon

on the other hand, sun's compiler^wtoolchain^whardware at the time
really did suck wind.  i can remember a vax 11/780 running circles around
a 670/mp for fork().  sun's mmu was that poor.

- erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
@ 2007-11-13  1:48                   ` erik quanstrom
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2007-11-13  1:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> 
> I think the thing that got gcc where it is is Linux, because it's  
> probably the only tool that compiles it! Either that, or Apple's  
> using it in Xcode.

gcc was well-positioned before linux came around.  very early versions
of gcc had some advantages over sun's or xinu's compiler.  especially
in groking prototypes and doing more careful typechecking.

that being said, to paraphrase frau prof. dr. baumann, i think in
free software, people get the tools they deserve.

- erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Money, guns, and lawyers.
  2007-11-13  1:41                   ` erik quanstrom
@ 2007-11-13  1:59                     ` Lyndon Nerenberg
  2007-11-13  2:02                       ` erik quanstrom
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Lyndon Nerenberg @ 2007-11-13  1:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs


On 2007-Nov-12, at 17:41 , erik quanstrom wrote:

> sun's mmu was that poor.

So gcc couldn't have helped if it wanted to.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Money, guns, and lawyers.
  2007-11-13  1:59                     ` Lyndon Nerenberg
@ 2007-11-13  2:02                       ` erik quanstrom
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2007-11-13  2:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> On 2007-Nov-12, at 17:41 , erik quanstrom wrote:
> 
> > sun's mmu was that poor.
> 
> So gcc couldn't have helped if it wanted to.

we never had sun's compiler for the 670/mp machines.  there
was no way to compare.

- erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-13  0:52               ` erik quanstrom
                                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2007-11-13  1:12                 ` [9fans] Money, guns, and lawyers Lyndon Nerenberg
@ 2007-11-14 16:55                 ` plan9
  2007-11-14 17:05                   ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-14 19:45                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
  3 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: plan9 @ 2007-11-14 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:52:55PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> wow!  if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris,
> do you think gcc would have gotten where it did?

(way OT at this point...)

Probably.  Face it, Sun's bundled cc was only there to relink the kernel
after diddling ("tuning") its constants.  Optimization was not its strong
suit.

We were already using gcc in preference to cc long before Solaris 2.0,
especially on other bloatware like X.  The only thing cc was good for
by then was bootstrapping gcc.

Man, you've gotten me all weepy for gcc 1.x.  How sick is that?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-14 16:55                 ` [9fans] Fortran plan9
@ 2007-11-14 17:05                   ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-14 19:45                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2007-11-14 17:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:52:55PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > wow!  if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris,
> > do you think gcc would have gotten where it did?
> 
> (way OT at this point...)
> 
> Probably.  Face it, Sun's bundled cc was only there to relink the kernel
> after diddling ("tuning") its constants.  Optimization was not its strong
> suit.
> 
> We were already using gcc in preference to cc long before Solaris 2.0,
> especially on other bloatware like X.  The only thing cc was good for
> by then was bootstrapping gcc.
> 
> Man, you've gotten me all weepy for gcc 1.x.  How sick is that?

i'm all weepy.  but that's because i thought at the time gcc was good software.
i was comparing it to sun's c and the travisty xinu foisted.  i had no idea
what good software looked like.

a mind is like a neutrino detector.  even big ones wait years for a
clueon event.

the reason for this, however, is different.  it's not that the clueon
capture cross section is so small, but there are just so few of them
and so inhibitors.  i believe gcc may be one of the largest clueon
flux inhibitors in the universe.

- erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 19:39       ` Steve Simon
  2007-11-12 21:39         ` Aki Nyrhinen
  2007-11-13  0:59         ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port Lyndon Nerenberg
@ 2007-11-14 19:05         ` ron minnich
  2007-11-14 19:14           ` Latchesar Ionkov
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2007-11-14 19:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 12, 2007 11:39 AM, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:
> > Fact is gcc is a de-facto standard
>
> I'm still trying to understand exactly what you mean by this.

I mean that people exploit its many properties, which makes porting
code to plan 9 painful.

let's see, where's ssh2 again?

ron


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:05         ` ron minnich
@ 2007-11-14 19:14           ` Latchesar Ionkov
  2007-11-14 19:19             ` ron minnich
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Latchesar Ionkov @ 2007-11-14 19:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

AFAIK there is one more unfinished attempt to bring ssh2 to Plan9. I
am not going to mention names ;)

On Nov 14, 2007 11:05 AM, ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 12, 2007 11:39 AM, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:
> > > Fact is gcc is a de-facto standard
> >
> > I'm still trying to understand exactly what you mean by this.
>
> I mean that people exploit its many properties, which makes porting
> code to plan 9 painful.
>
> let's see, where's ssh2 again?
>
> ron
>
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:14           ` Latchesar Ionkov
@ 2007-11-14 19:19             ` ron minnich
  2007-11-14 19:25               ` erik quanstrom
                                 ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2007-11-14 19:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

Put it another way. There are THOUSANDS of tools that you can't even
attempt to compile if you can't run configure. You can't run configure
w/out bash. You can't build bash unless you have the gnu toolchain.

It's a knot.

And the only way out that I can see is gcc.

ron


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:19             ` ron minnich
@ 2007-11-14 19:25               ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-14 19:53                 ` Charles Forsyth
  2007-11-14 21:22                 ` ron minnich
  2007-11-14 19:36               ` Bakul Shah
  2007-11-14 19:37               ` Federico G. Benavento
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2007-11-14 19:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> Put it another way. There are THOUSANDS of tools that you can't even
> attempt to compile if you can't run configure. You can't run configure
> w/out bash. You can't build bash unless you have the gnu toolchain.
> 
> It's a knot.
> 
> And the only way out that I can see is gcc.
> 
> ron

a good number of tools are not that hard to de-configure.  i've
had to stoop to that when compiling stuff for which configure is broken.

a good percentage of the stuff configured is not required.  configure
spends a lot of energy looking for spiffy optimizations that can safely
be skipped.

- erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:19             ` ron minnich
  2007-11-14 19:25               ` erik quanstrom
@ 2007-11-14 19:36               ` Bakul Shah
  2007-11-14 19:45                 ` Latchesar Ionkov
  2007-11-14 19:37               ` Federico G. Benavento
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Bakul Shah @ 2007-11-14 19:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

> Put it another way. There are THOUSANDS of tools that you can't even
> attempt to compile if you can't run configure. You can't run configure
> w/out bash. You can't build bash unless you have the gnu toolchain.
> 
> It's a knot.
> 
> And the only way out that I can see is gcc.

Wouldn't it be far easier to teach plan9 to grok ELF than to
change gcc in any major way or am I missing something very
large and obvious?  Wouldn't be the first time.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:19             ` ron minnich
  2007-11-14 19:25               ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-14 19:36               ` Bakul Shah
@ 2007-11-14 19:37               ` Federico G. Benavento
  2007-11-18  3:32                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Federico G. Benavento @ 2007-11-14 19:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 282 bytes --]

Talking about ports...

ImageMagic 6.3.6-10 with jpeg, png, lcms, jbig...:
/n/sources/contrib/fgb/magick.tgz

needs:
/n/sources/contrib/fgb/apelibs.tgz
see /n/sources/contrib/fgb/apelibs.txt

Federico G. Benavento

---
/bin/fortune:
There is no gift like the present.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4704 bytes --]

From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 11:19:46 -0800
Message-ID: <13426df10711141119s5433b14cx90615fd0c95404c4@mail.gmail.com>

Put it another way. There are THOUSANDS of tools that you can't even
attempt to compile if you can't run configure. You can't run configure
w/out bash. You can't build bash unless you have the gnu toolchain.

It's a knot.

And the only way out that I can see is gcc.

ron

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:36               ` Bakul Shah
@ 2007-11-14 19:45                 ` Latchesar Ionkov
  2007-11-14 20:16                   ` Bakul Shah
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Latchesar Ionkov @ 2007-11-14 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

Making binutils to grok Plan9 aout is not big and is already been done.

On Nov 14, 2007 11:36 AM, Bakul Shah <bakul+plan9@bitblocks.com> wrote:
>
> > Put it another way. There are THOUSANDS of tools that you can't even
> > attempt to compile if you can't run configure. You can't run configure
> > w/out bash. You can't build bash unless you have the gnu toolchain.
> >
> > It's a knot.
> >
> > And the only way out that I can see is gcc.
>
> Wouldn't it be far easier to teach plan9 to grok ELF than to
> change gcc in any major way or am I missing something very
> large and obvious?  Wouldn't be the first time.
>
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-14 16:55                 ` [9fans] Fortran plan9
  2007-11-14 17:05                   ` erik quanstrom
@ 2007-11-14 19:45                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-14 20:04                     ` Uriel
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-14 19:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

I have nothing against gcc. I have everything against the GPL. I have  
no idea of Solaris' history, though.

On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:55 AM, plan9@sigint.cs.purdue.edu wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:52:55PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> wow!  if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris,
>> do you think gcc would have gotten where it did?
>
> (way OT at this point...)
>
> Probably.  Face it, Sun's bundled cc was only there to relink the  
> kernel
> after diddling ("tuning") its constants.  Optimization was not its  
> strong
> suit.
>
> We were already using gcc in preference to cc long before Solaris 2.0,
> especially on other bloatware like X.  The only thing cc was good for
> by then was bootstrapping gcc.
>
> Man, you've gotten me all weepy for gcc 1.x.  How sick is that?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:25               ` erik quanstrom
@ 2007-11-14 19:53                 ` Charles Forsyth
  2007-11-14 20:43                   ` Robert William Fuller
  2007-11-14 21:22                 ` ron minnich
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Charles Forsyth @ 2007-11-14 19:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

>> attempt to compile if you can't run configure. You can't run configure
>> w/out bash. You can't build bash unless you have the gnu toolchain.

it still won't work because it expects certain things in certain places
where they never will be.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-14 19:45                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
@ 2007-11-14 20:04                     ` Uriel
  2007-11-14 20:09                       ` William K. Josephson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Uriel @ 2007-11-14 20:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 14, 2007 8:45 PM, Pietro Gagliardi <pietro10@mac.com> wrote:
> I have nothing against gcc. I have everything against the GPL. I have
> no idea of Solaris' history, though.

Then what are you doing in this mailing list?

uriel

> On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:55 AM, plan9@sigint.cs.purdue.edu wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Nov 12, 2007 at 07:52:55PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> >> wow!  if they'd never taken the c compiler out of solaris,
> >> do you think gcc would have gotten where it did?
> >
> > (way OT at this point...)
> >
> > Probably.  Face it, Sun's bundled cc was only there to relink the
> > kernel
> > after diddling ("tuning") its constants.  Optimization was not its
> > strong
> > suit.
> >
> > We were already using gcc in preference to cc long before Solaris 2.0,
> > especially on other bloatware like X.  The only thing cc was good for
> > by then was bootstrapping gcc.
> >
> > Man, you've gotten me all weepy for gcc 1.x.  How sick is that?
>
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Fortran
  2007-11-14 20:04                     ` Uriel
@ 2007-11-14 20:09                       ` William K. Josephson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: William K. Josephson @ 2007-11-14 20:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Wed, Nov 14, 2007 at 09:04:00PM +0100, Uriel wrote:
> On Nov 14, 2007 8:45 PM, Pietro Gagliardi <pietro10@mac.com> wrote:
> > I have nothing against gcc. I have everything against the GPL. I have
> > no idea of Solaris' history, though.
> 
> Then what are you doing in this mailing list?

Last I checked, Plan 9 was not GPL'd.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:45                 ` Latchesar Ionkov
@ 2007-11-14 20:16                   ` Bakul Shah
  2007-11-14 21:00                     ` Latchesar Ionkov
                                       ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Bakul Shah @ 2007-11-14 20:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

> Making binutils to grok Plan9 aout is not big and is already been done.

So then what is the big problem in porting gcc to plan9?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:53                 ` Charles Forsyth
@ 2007-11-14 20:43                   ` Robert William Fuller
  2007-11-14 21:15                     ` Charles Forsyth
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Robert William Fuller @ 2007-11-14 20:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

Charles Forsyth wrote:
>>> attempt to compile if you can't run configure. You can't run configure
>>> w/out bash. You can't build bash unless you have the gnu toolchain.
> 
> it still won't work because it expects certain things in certain places
> where they never will be.

Am I being naive when I ask if this could not be solved with namespaces?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 20:16                   ` Bakul Shah
@ 2007-11-14 21:00                     ` Latchesar Ionkov
  2007-11-14 21:12                     ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-14 23:12                     ` erik quanstrom
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Latchesar Ionkov @ 2007-11-14 21:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

The problem is that you have to go with GNU for everything. You have
to use their assembler, linker, object format, compiler and debugger.
You need two compile every Plan9 library for ?c and gcc separately.

On Nov 14, 2007 12:16 PM, Bakul Shah <bakul+plan9@bitblocks.com> wrote:
> > Making binutils to grok Plan9 aout is not big and is already been done.
>
> So then what is the big problem in porting gcc to plan9?
>
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 20:16                   ` Bakul Shah
  2007-11-14 21:00                     ` Latchesar Ionkov
@ 2007-11-14 21:12                     ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-14 23:12                     ` erik quanstrom
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-14 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:16 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
>>
> So then what is the big problem in porting gcc to plan9?

gcc was ported to Plan 9.

	term% 9fs sources
	term% cp /n/sources/extra/gcc/gnubin.tgz some_dir # this will take a  
long time! :-)
	term% cd some_dir
	term% gunzip < gnubin.tgz | tar xv
	term% gnubin/386/bin/gnu/gcc arguments

Everything said to you so far  sums it up. Besides, many UNIX  
programs can be compiled with pcc, and some of the libraries (such as  
curses) are available from /n/sources/contrib). See /sys/doc/ape.ps.  
Examples, you ask? pic(1) and troff(1), oh and GCC itself.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 20:43                   ` Robert William Fuller
@ 2007-11-14 21:15                     ` Charles Forsyth
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Charles Forsyth @ 2007-11-14 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 277 bytes --]

no it's not naive.  for configure, yes, that will work.
unfortunately it then writes those values into the resulting .h files and makefiles
and you're now stuck having always to use that name space to run the application.
it's a bit like the european acquis communautaire.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3869 bytes --]

From: Robert William Fuller <hydrologiccycle@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 15:43:38 -0500
Message-ID: <473B5DFA.1020502@gmail.com>

Charles Forsyth wrote:
>>> attempt to compile if you can't run configure. You can't run configure
>>> w/out bash. You can't build bash unless you have the gnu toolchain.
> 
> it still won't work because it expects certain things in certain places
> where they never will be.

Am I being naive when I ask if this could not be solved with namespaces?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:25               ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-14 19:53                 ` Charles Forsyth
@ 2007-11-14 21:22                 ` ron minnich
  2007-11-14 23:04                   ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-15 23:12                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2007-11-14 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 14, 2007 11:25 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com> wrote:

> a good percentage of the stuff configured is not required.  configure
> spends a lot of energy looking for spiffy optimizations that can safely
> be skipped.

You're right. But it doesn't matter. People are not willing to put in the work.

The go/no go decision for Plan 9 in many cases boils down to whether
tools can be built and will run.

With zero effort. I don't like it, it's just what I've seen and heard
of from other sites.

ron


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-12 23:55               ` Charles Forsyth
                                   ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2007-11-13  0:53                 ` Joel C. Salomon
@ 2007-11-14 21:50                 ` y i y u s
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: y i y u s @ 2007-11-14 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

2007/11/13, Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>:
> > Actually, a lot of scientists seem to use Fortran 90.
> > Current versions of gfortran support (most of?) Fortran 95.
>
> i'm hoping that eventually there will be good languages
> for scientists to use, but given that many C/C++ users migrated
> to Java, perhaps the traffic is quite often in the wrong direction.
>
> more seriously, what are the statistics for the use of programming
> systems in scientific applications?
>
>

I'm just starting (this is my first year working after finishing my
studies), but I can tell you what I have seen so far is matlab,
mathematica, and a lot of excel (I think you cannot understand how I
miss awk to do simple things...)

-- 


- yiyus || JGL .


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 21:22                 ` ron minnich
@ 2007-11-14 23:04                   ` erik quanstrom
  2007-11-15 23:12                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2007-11-14 23:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> On Nov 14, 2007 11:25 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com> wrote:
> 
> > a good percentage of the stuff configured is not required.  configure
> > spends a lot of energy looking for spiffy optimizations that can safely
> > be skipped.
> 
> You're right. But it doesn't matter. People are not willing to put in the work.
> 
> The go/no go decision for Plan 9 in many cases boils down to whether
> tools can be built and will run.
> 
> With zero effort. I don't like it, it's just what I've seen and heard
> of from other sites.
> 
> ron

is a myth that anything with computers can be done with
zero effort.  maintaining linux is a huge resource pig
and that task is getting harder not easier.  it's just a
problem people are used to so it's not entered in the
ledger.

- erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 20:16                   ` Bakul Shah
  2007-11-14 21:00                     ` Latchesar Ionkov
  2007-11-14 21:12                     ` Pietro Gagliardi
@ 2007-11-14 23:12                     ` erik quanstrom
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: erik quanstrom @ 2007-11-14 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> > Making binutils to grok Plan9 aout is not big and is already been done.
> 
> So then what is the big problem in porting gcc to plan9?
> 

you first. ☺

- erik


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 21:22                 ` ron minnich
  2007-11-14 23:04                   ` erik quanstrom
@ 2007-11-15 23:12                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-15 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs


On Nov 14, 2007, at 4:22 PM, ron minnich wrote:

> On Nov 14, 2007 11:25 AM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com> wrote:
>
>> a good percentage of the stuff configured is not required.  configure
>> spends a lot of energy looking for spiffy optimizations that can  
>> safely
>> be skipped.

Configure also screws us up when it's needed. Especially when I'm  
having problems compiling software because I'm missing a library I  
don't want to take the time to install! DON'T DYNAMICALLY LINK. Good  
thing Plan 9 don't (as far as I know).

It also introduces a complication. How automated is autotools when  
you have this: see /n/sources/contrib/pietro/Autotools.png
It's how autotools works. The circles are programs you run to get a  
configure file! It should be called a portability nightmare!

And how about this in the category of pointless:

	Checking for C compiler...

Is that even necessary? Do you think someone compiling a program  
written in C would have a C compiler on them? Oh, and when you find  
out it's gcc, why does it go on to check whether or not it has  
specific flags and header files - especially standard header files,  
because I don't think you would need to ensure you have standard  
header files anyway anymore because everyone who uses anything made  
after 1990 (pretty much 99.024% of the population) use Standard C?  
Why not just assume those flags and headers are there?

I once tried to contribute to AbiWord. But Compilation using  
autotools held me back. And then I discovered troff, and that's what  
I'm using from now on (although I might make a mm to AbiWord  
converter one day). Oh how the mighty GNU have fallen.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-14 19:37               ` Federico G. Benavento
@ 2007-11-18  3:32                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-18 23:28                   ` Federico G. Benavento
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Pietro Gagliardi @ 2007-11-18  3:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

Do the files in apelibs.tgz collide with any on the default  
distribution?

On Nov 14, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Federico G. Benavento wrote:

> Talking about ports...
>
> ImageMagic 6.3.6-10 with jpeg, png, lcms, jbig...:
> /n/sources/contrib/fgb/magick.tgz
>
> needs:
> /n/sources/contrib/fgb/apelibs.tgz
> see /n/sources/contrib/fgb/apelibs.txt
>
> Federico G. Benavento
>
> ---
> /bin/fortune:
> There is no gift like the present.
>
> From: "ron minnich" <rminnich@gmail.com>
> Date: November 14, 2007 2:19:46 PM EST
> To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
> Reply-To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
>
>
> Put it another way. There are THOUSANDS of tools that you can't even
> attempt to compile if you can't run configure. You can't run configure
> w/out bash. You can't build bash unless you have the gnu toolchain.
>
> It's a knot.
>
> And the only way out that I can see is gcc.
>
> ron
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Re: Ruby port
  2007-11-18  3:32                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
@ 2007-11-18 23:28                   ` Federico G. Benavento
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: Federico G. Benavento @ 2007-11-18 23:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> Do the files in apelibs.tgz collide with any on the default  
> distribution?

just /sys/src/ape/lib/mkfile


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Ruby port
  2007-11-11 20:44 [9fans] Ruby port Christopher Nielsen
  2007-11-11 20:54 ` Pietro Gagliardi
  2007-11-12  5:28 ` ron minnich
@ 2007-12-02 22:55 ` Kim Shrier
  2007-12-02 23:12   ` Federico G. Benavento
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Kim Shrier @ 2007-12-02 22:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs

On Nov 11, 2007, at 1:44 PM, Christopher Nielsen wrote:

> Anyone porting ruby? Would anyone besides me use it?
>
> I have about five months of free time to work on projects.
>
> -- 
> Christopher Nielsen
> "They who can give up essential liberty for temporary
> safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
>
Sorry for the late post, I have been busy with other things.
Anyway, I am working on a port of Ruby 1.8.6 p111 to Plan 9.
I have the miniruby interpreter compiled and linked.  It appears
to work OK but I have not stressed it very much.  I will be
working on completing the port of a statically linked Ruby
interpreter.

One feature I like about Ruby is the ability to add libraries
of code that contain C code.  Ruby does this through dynamic
linking.  Since Plan 9 doesn't support dynamic linking, (and I
am not suggesting that it be added to Plan 9), what is the
general consensus on how to achieve similar functionality without
resorting to dynamic linking?

Kim Shrier


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Ruby port
  2007-12-02 22:55 ` [9fans] " Kim Shrier
@ 2007-12-02 23:12   ` Federico G. Benavento
  2007-12-03  5:11     ` Charles Forsyth
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Federico G. Benavento @ 2007-12-02 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

hola,

> One feature I like about Ruby is the ability to add libraries
> of code that contain C code.  Ruby does this through dynamic
> linking.  Since Plan 9 doesn't support dynamic linking, (and I
> am not suggesting that it be added to Plan 9), what is the
> general consensus on how to achieve similar functionality without
> resorting to dynamic linking?

ron has a hacked 8c with support for dynamic loading, he did it for
python.  I recently did an APE port of python with the standard 8c.

if I need/want a new module I just rebuild it, I have
/$objtype/lib/ape/libpython.a and a special mkfile in a Extra/ 
where I just put .c files in a dir per module, the mkfiles are smart enough
to build everything and add the init fn() calls to some initmodule()
maybe it's a bit overkill, but who knows...

lotte% ls -l /sys/src/cmd/python/Extra/
--rw-r--r-- M 241 fgb fgb  56 Nov 19 04:32 /sys/src/cmd/python/Extra/dummy.c
d-rwxr-xr-x M 241 fgb fgb   0 Dec  2 20:06 /sys/src/cmd/python/Extra/mercurial
--rw-r--r-- M 241 fgb fgb 253 Nov 19 09:36 /sys/src/cmd/python/Extra/mkfile

lotte% ls -l /sys/src/cmd/python/Extra/mercurial/
--rw-r--r-- M 241 fgb fgb 3249 Nov 19 08:03 /sys/src/cmd/python/Extra/mercurial/base85.c
--rw-r--r-- M 241 fgb fgb 7930 Nov 19 08:03 /sys/src/cmd/python/Extra/mercurial/bdiff.c

Federico G. Benavento

---
/bin/fortune:
I taught him everything he knows.  Now he knows more.  -Randal L. Schwartz


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Ruby port
  2007-12-02 23:12   ` Federico G. Benavento
@ 2007-12-03  5:11     ` Charles Forsyth
  2007-12-03  5:13       ` lucio
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 61+ messages in thread
From: Charles Forsyth @ 2007-12-03  5:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

>ron has a hacked 8c with support for dynamic loading, he did it for
>python.  I recently did an APE port of python with the standard 8c.

8c and 8l support dynamic loading.  (a problem with python is that
up to and including 2.4.x they link together modules that declare
a structure incompatibly -- different offsets for the `same' fields -- which 8l detects
if set up for dynamic loading.)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

* Re: [9fans] Ruby port
  2007-12-03  5:11     ` Charles Forsyth
@ 2007-12-03  5:13       ` lucio
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 61+ messages in thread
From: lucio @ 2007-12-03  5:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> 8c and 8l support dynamic loading.

Where and how is this documented/achieved?  It would be good to
understand the principles involved.  Reading the source, no matter how
salubrious, is hard work unless one is already familiar with it.

++L


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 61+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-12-03  5:13 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 61+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-11-11 20:44 [9fans] Ruby port Christopher Nielsen
2007-11-11 20:54 ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-12  5:28 ` ron minnich
2007-11-12 14:19   ` David Leimbach
2007-11-12 15:40   ` [9fans] " prem
2007-11-12 19:01     ` ron minnich
2007-11-12 19:39       ` Steve Simon
2007-11-12 21:39         ` Aki Nyrhinen
2007-11-12 22:39           ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-12 23:21             ` Steve Simon
2007-11-12 23:32             ` William Josephson
2007-11-12 23:55               ` Charles Forsyth
2007-11-12 23:52                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-13  0:00                 ` William K. Josephson
2007-11-13  0:53                 ` Joel C. Salomon
2007-11-13  0:57                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-13  1:32                     ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port ( off topic ) fernanbolando
2007-11-14 21:50                 ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port y i y u s
2007-11-13  0:27             ` Aki Nyrhinen
2007-11-13  0:33             ` David Leimbach
2007-11-13  0:35             ` Aki Nyrhinen
2007-11-13  0:50             ` [9fans] Fortran Lyndon Nerenberg
2007-11-13  0:52               ` erik quanstrom
2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2007-11-13  1:08                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-13  1:48                   ` erik quanstrom
2007-11-13  1:12                 ` [9fans] Money, guns, and lawyers Lyndon Nerenberg
2007-11-13  1:41                   ` erik quanstrom
2007-11-13  1:59                     ` Lyndon Nerenberg
2007-11-13  2:02                       ` erik quanstrom
2007-11-14 16:55                 ` [9fans] Fortran plan9
2007-11-14 17:05                   ` erik quanstrom
2007-11-14 19:45                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-14 20:04                     ` Uriel
2007-11-14 20:09                       ` William K. Josephson
2007-11-13  0:59         ` [9fans] Re: Ruby port Lyndon Nerenberg
2007-11-13  1:23           ` Hagen Paul Pfeifer
2007-11-13  1:25           ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-14 19:05         ` ron minnich
2007-11-14 19:14           ` Latchesar Ionkov
2007-11-14 19:19             ` ron minnich
2007-11-14 19:25               ` erik quanstrom
2007-11-14 19:53                 ` Charles Forsyth
2007-11-14 20:43                   ` Robert William Fuller
2007-11-14 21:15                     ` Charles Forsyth
2007-11-14 21:22                 ` ron minnich
2007-11-14 23:04                   ` erik quanstrom
2007-11-15 23:12                   ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-14 19:36               ` Bakul Shah
2007-11-14 19:45                 ` Latchesar Ionkov
2007-11-14 20:16                   ` Bakul Shah
2007-11-14 21:00                     ` Latchesar Ionkov
2007-11-14 21:12                     ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-14 23:12                     ` erik quanstrom
2007-11-14 19:37               ` Federico G. Benavento
2007-11-18  3:32                 ` Pietro Gagliardi
2007-11-18 23:28                   ` Federico G. Benavento
2007-12-02 22:55 ` [9fans] " Kim Shrier
2007-12-02 23:12   ` Federico G. Benavento
2007-12-03  5:11     ` Charles Forsyth
2007-12-03  5:13       ` lucio

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).