From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Tolpin Message-Id: <200403020837.i228bAv4071610@adat.davidashen.net> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: advantages of limbo In-Reply-To: <918d202b192f1bcb8dd969285010a329@proxima.alt.za> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2004 12:37:10 +0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0a8d3878-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 > > Are there code examples in limbo and Java which can convince someone > > that limbo is more convenient? > > > ... you're edging closer to a religious topic. There are > philosophical differences between Limbo and Java that can only be > considered, not explained. Like there are between Pascal and C. Can > you convincingly state that C is _better_ than Pascal without > resorting to some untestable philosophical principle? I know I > cannot, in either direction. C and Pascal where created for different programming applications. Pascal had never been thought of as a language for systems programming. I'd consider philosophically comparing C and Oberon, but it's another issue. Going back to limbo, I see one advantage that would overweigh all the drawbacks. If limbo could be integrated into an OS other than Inferno (e.g. Plan 9) better than perl is (that is, if one can and does rewrite acme in limbo for Plan 9, for example), then it is a difference big enough to win. Right now, Java and limbo are in the same position of external tools artificially brought in. > Where I think Limbo has the edge, is that it is not the product of a > marketing organisation that has discovered yet another marketable > product, but that it grew from a desire to get things done to a clear > philosophical direction. What is the philosophical direction?