From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <13426df10807301132x46a5aab5m8cc858b8619737b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:32:02 -0700 From: "ron minnich" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@9fans.net> In-Reply-To: <5226573422c5744e5de8f3b806169834@coraid.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <488B6EE7.3080100@mtu.edu> <1217421120.5036.34.camel@goose.sun.com> <13426df10807300810s4d854612ib7597a9463f7f02f@mail.gmail.com> <13426df10807300840lb13f30aw18b6f8def086ef31@mail.gmail.com> <4890A6B0.4070901@gmail.com> <4890ACDD.5070306@gmail.com> <5226573422c5744e5de8f3b806169834@coraid.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 on Blue Gene Topicbox-Message-UUID: f7385440-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 11:21 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: >> Obviously Plan 9's compiler >> isn't optimal.. but what really are the requirements people > > really? that depends on your definition of optimal. > by my definition which heavily rates speed of compliation > and correctness, it's sure closer than the competition. for people whose programs run in time units measured in 1/4 years, compilation speed as an issue is in the noise. ron