Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[rob pike, esq.]

bwk did the typesetting, on IRIX, but the tools were the same as on plan 9
and i used plan 9 at the time.

bwk's 'readme' about plan 9 was not written by an eager plan 9 user, which was
kinda part of its point.  i wasn't terribly happy with the result.

-rob

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[andrey mirtchovski]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003, rob pike, esq. wrote:

> bwk's 'readme' about plan 9 was not written by an eager plan 9 user, which was
> kinda part of its point.  i wasn't terribly happy with the result.

I find it a good introduction to people who are not so eager to explore it
-- sort of a 'that's what it is, see if you like it' article.

This approach is much more persuasive than my 'but this is so easy in plan9'
and 'plan9 is so much better' blatherings, which are usually met with
disbelief and ridicule (well, disbelief.. they dare not ridicule me :)

Maybe I should remove it, but someone ought to write a better one to put in
its place -- someone who speaks english :)

andrey

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi rob,

> bwk did the typesetting, on IRIX, but the tools were the same as on
> plan 9 and i used plan 9 at the time.

The C++ pm post-processor hasn't made it to later Plan 9s though, so I
guess it needs Unix to produce these days?

Cheers,

--
Ralph Corderoy.      http://inputplus.co.uk/ralph/     http://troff.org/

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[rob pike, esq.]

> The C++ pm post-processor hasn't made it to later Plan 9s though, so I
> guess it needs Unix to produce these days?

right.  we were not allowed to release the source to cfront, so we didn't
include pm, written in C++, in later distributions.

-rob

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[Charles Forsyth]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 115 bytes --]

it does produce quite attractive output (pm obviously, not cfront).
i simply use the old binary on current Plan 9.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2399 bytes --]

From: "rob pike, esq." <rob@mightycheese.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:25:02 -0700
Message-ID: <c25ce3779dc3198a337cf0936e929e53@mightycheese.com>

> The C++ pm post-processor hasn't made it to later Plan 9s though, so I
> guess it needs Unix to produce these days?

right.  we were not allowed to release the source to cfront, so we didn't
include pm, written in C++, in later distributions.

-rob

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[Fco.J.Ballesteros]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 43 bytes --]

can we obtain the old binary to use pm too?

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4555 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 115 bytes --]

it does produce quite attractive output (pm obviously, not cfront).
i simply use the old binary on current Plan 9.

[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2399 bytes --]

From: "rob pike, esq." <rob@mightycheese.com>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 08:25:02 -0700
Message-ID: <c25ce3779dc3198a337cf0936e929e53@mightycheese.com>

> The C++ pm post-processor hasn't made it to later Plan 9s though, so I
> guess it needs Unix to produce these days?

right.  we were not allowed to release the source to cfront, so we didn't
include pm, written in C++, in later distributions.

-rob

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[Jack Johnson]

Charles Forsyth wrote:
> it does produce quite attractive output (pm obviously, not cfront).
> i simply use the old binary on current Plan 9.

Is there any particular reason why pm was written in C++ and not C?
Intern project?  Easier?  Heritage from Some Other Unix?

I'm not familiar with it at all.  Where does/did it fit in the troff
chain?  Is there anything that replaces it now?

-Jack

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[rob pike, esq.]

> Is there any particular reason why pm was written in C++ and not C?
> Intern project?  Easier?  Heritage from Some Other Unix?
>
> I'm not familiar with it at all.  Where does/did it fit in the troff
> chain?  Is there anything that replaces it now?

to answer your question, it was written on unix by chris van wyk and
brian kernighan and imported to plan 9 because its output is nice.  it
needed a macro package to support it.

however: it has not been released under the current license (cfront is
no longer owned by the people who own plan 9) and so it's
unmaintainable in the current environment anyway.  officially, it no
longer exists.

yet another reason to dislike c++.

-rob

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[Scott Schwartz]

Can pm be built by g++ under Plan 9?  That'd be a way to
get it into the distribution.

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[Lucio De Re]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 06:07:19PM +0200, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote:
>
> can we obtain the old binary to use pm too?

I can mail you a copy compiled for 3ed/386, it's 200K or thereabouts,
source and binaries in tgz format.

++L

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[rob pike, esq.]

> I can mail you a copy compiled for 3ed/386, it's 200K or thereabouts,
> source and binaries in tgz format.

I could have sworn I said it wasn't licensed for distribution.
But these days, who cares about licenses?

-rob

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[Lucio De Re]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:48:57PM -0700, rob pike, esq. wrote:
>
> > I can mail you a copy compiled for 3ed/386, it's 200K or thereabouts,
> > source and binaries in tgz format.
>
> I could have sworn I said it wasn't licensed for distribution.
> But these days, who cares about licenses?
>
That was (a) meant to be private mail and (b) a recompilation of the
published source.  I really didn't think I was breaking a licence, but
if I am, I retract the above altogether.  Nemo has a 2ed licence, if I
remember correctly, though, which is why I offered it to him (and
slipped on the send button).

Sorry if I came across as not caring about the licencing terms.

++L

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[Lucio De Re]

On Fri, Aug 01, 2003 at 07:08:45AM +0200, Lucio De Re wrote:
>
> That was (a) meant to be private mail and (b) a recompilation of the
> published source.  I really didn't think I was breaking a licence, but
> if I am, I retract the above altogether.  Nemo has a 2ed licence, if I
> remember correctly, though, which is why I offered it to him (and
> slipped on the send button).
>
This is what I have on my web site <wow.proxima.alt.za>:

	As 2nd Edition Plan 9 comes with a very restrictive licence,
	I took the liberty of producing 3rd Edition version of the
	/386/bin/aux/pm binary for those who may not have such a
	licence. Please contact me as Lucio De Re or on the 9fans
	mailing list for a copy.

Should I be adding a restriction that the recipient ought to have a
2ed licence first?  Or should I remove this altogether?

++L

Re: [9fans] [even more off topic] 'The Practice of Programming' &

[Skip Tavakkolian]

> But these days, who cares about licenses?

a man made artifact fighting the nature of man?