Re: [9fans] the declaration of main()

[Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>]

In article <200104281554.LAA13061@egyptian-gods.MIT.EDU> you write:
>Yes, main() could have been renamed to strmain() or start() or
>whatever.  It would have been less elegant (since main is, after all,
>a good name) and ANSI C programs still wouldn't run normally because
>the loader wouldn't know how to invoke main() (since the designers
>don't want to pollute the system with backward compatibility
>features).  Really, your issue is not with that particular decision
>but with the basic design goals of the system, and those are unlikely
>to change.

I don't agree that this is what Doug is saying; I think he's just
saying that compatability could have been achieved in a more seamless
fashion.  He has a point, and indeed, someone today ran into problems
trying to mix `native' Plan 9 functions with functions taken from the
APE.  (Sorry, I didn't pay close enough attention to see who it was!)

Also, you're off on the linker part; he gave an example of a library
function which would, ``do the right thing'' in that arena.  (The C
startup code would invoke mains(), taken out of a library, which, in
turn, would call main()).

On a personal note, I think that ``mains()'' is a cool name.

I don't think that anyone is saying that there's no useful software
written under Unix or in ISO C (note, for instance, that awk is brought
in under the APE).  The question is more, ``is the APE sufficient for
supportng that software?''  In most cases, I think so.  The other part
of the equation, and one which I think Doug is addressing is, ``is the
APE sufficient for writing software to port to other systems?''  Again,
I think so; though I've never tried.  True, one cannot easily mix and
match `native' Plan 9 and APE functions, but I think that might be a
good thing.

	- Dan C.