From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 12:55:16 -0700 Message-Id: <200606071255.16119.corey_s@qwest.net> From: "Corey" To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 References: <200606071058.35174.corey_s@qwest.net> <8ccc8ba40606071157r4222175fmf1834f3e45698cef@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <8ccc8ba40606071157r4222175fmf1834f3e45698cef@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5b839386-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Wednesday 07 June 2006 11:57, Francisco J Ballesteros wrote: > In few words, it > was a warning that: Plan 9 is not UNIX. > Definitely - and this is what makes Plan 9 so appealing. > Plan9 is spartan and lean, and also very effective. > very much like UNIX was. > I like that about plan 9, and I'm very much an advocate of spartan and lean, as well as focused and well-integrated/holistic. Objective-C and the base GNUstep library/framework very much themselves contain those same attributes: light, efficient, lean. Conceptually, I think obj-c/gnustep running on plan 9 would be pretty enticing. > For example, GNUstep depends not just on the compiler, but also on many > services you find today on Linux and similar UNIXes. Trying to pull that into > Plan 9 would force you to pull many other stuff as well. > Yes, I've considered that - and I agree that it would be difficult and unsavory. But it would also be temporary, a boot-strap sort of a process. The alien cruft could be deprecated and replaced over time with natively-built components. Also, when I talk about considering porting GNUstep, I'm just talking the base/core framework libraries and whatever could be ported or rewritten easily.