From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?)
From: anothy@cosym.net
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Message-Id: <20011107213502.4E8371998A@mail.cse.psu.edu>
Date: Wed,  7 Nov 2001 16:34:47 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 18bcf760-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

// ...continuous criticism... ...of everything beyond the boundaries
// of Plan 9/Inferno, no matter how justified, isn't healthy.

i'd agree with the implication but disagree with the statement.

i think constant criticism is a very good thing, provided it's done in a
productive manner, and the criticism is somewhat more concrete than
"not invented here." it is this ongoing criticism that will help all these
systems change, correct their flaws or failures of vision, and improve.

which brings me to my point of agreement. you say "everything beyond
the boundaries of Plan 9/Inferno" and i think that's a good observation.
Plan 9 and Inferno are by no means perfect. as someone noted some
time ago, the alt.sysadmin.recovery FAQ gets it right: no systems don't
suck, plan 9 simply sucks less than others. i think it's important that
_everybody_ needs to be occasionally reminded that they suck in some
fashion or other. but with that needs to come info on _how_ one sucks,
and how to suck less.

take the current compiler discussion. i would say the contention here is
not that GCC is worthless and ?c/?l are perfect, but rather that one can
be more productive improving ?c/?l than GCC. you correctly note that
the Plan 9 tools don't deal with cross-OS compiling (except in very
limited cases), whereas GCC does (to some degree, anyway). i don't
believe anyone is disputing this, nor claiming it doesn't matter. but i bet
most people here would say it'd require less overall man-hours to get
8c/8l to build Linux binaries than to get GCC to build Plan 9 ones, and
that the results would enable people on whatever platform to develop
things better and more quickly.

// Perl would open another [door], Python a third, Apache a fourth, etc.

Perl and Python i can see, for sure. they're languages, with apps
written in them, that people want to be able to use. and for good reason.
Perl and Python each have benefits one cannot get with C, rc, or Limbo.
i'd love to see them supported better on Plan 9.

Apache's a harder sell. do people want "Apache" or a web server with a
certain feature set? if the later, one has a decision to make: port (and
maybe improve) Apache, improve Plan 9's httpd, or build something
new. there's a legitamate cost/gain analysis here; the fact that we didn't
build Apache shouldn't enter into it.

i agree everyone could benefit by more active exchange between Plan 9
and other systems. but i think it's a big leap to go from there to saying
we should spend more time improving GCC or porting Apache.
ア