From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200306181622.h5IGMt506956@augusta.math.psu.edu> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:48:24 MDT." From: Dan Cross Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:22:54 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cee30484-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > > If the BSD Unix crowd put as much effort into writing their own > > compilers as they put into the sort of posturing we saw yesterday, > > they'd have had their own compilers years ago. Why is it strictly > > necessary to use the Plan 9 compilers? Why not just write your own? > > It shouldn't take more than a couple months of work, really. > > They want to use the Plan 9 compilers because they're better, of course :) Heh. :-) > That settled, I would definitely like to see a more widespread adoption of > the Plan 9 compilers -- if nothing else, simply because it'll make me feel > like this operating system is going somewhere and not hitting a dead end > (not that I'm implying this). I can understand that, but I'd rather see a more widespread adoption of the spirit of Plan 9 than any part of its code. That is, more function with less software. > Wouldn't you like to see those pesky 20% lack of speed (in the binary, not > in compilation) disappear? Presumably that's what the BSD people mean by > 'improvement'. It depends. Not if it means a 100% slowdown in the speed of the compiler, or an order of magnitude increase in the code size. The BSD people don't have a good track record in this area; I found it ironic that Theo called GNU software bloatware. - Dan C.