Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9

["Corey" <corey_s@qwest.net>]

On Wednesday 07 June 2006 15:56, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> Am Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:39:43 -0700 schrieb "Corey" <corey_s@qwest.net>:
> 
> > Do you use Plan 9 for your general-purpose, everyday, recreational
> > computing environment?
> 
> Yes.
>

That's definitely remarkable, and respect-worthy.

Not necessarily because you use Plan 9, but because of all the things you
obviously _don't_ use while using Plan 9 - such as graphical/current web-browsing 
apps, various media apps, pim apps, vector graphics editing apps, spreadsheet
and publishing apps, pdf, relational database management systems, etc. etc.


> > I have neither the morale nor the power to write even a single line of
> > code for this new  "integrated graphical desktop environment" on Plan 9
> > -- I merely intend to assemble the work that others are doing; I'm like
> > a child clumsily playing with lego bricks. The best that I can do is
> > help write the gluework to get it working together nicely.
> 
> So why are you discussing this, when you are not going to write any source
> code?
>

Because I firmly believe that writing source code is for suckers!

Wait, no - because I am not Super-Programmer. And also because, one of the 
primary benefits of open-source software and code-reuse in general is... well,
so. that. people. may. reuse. code.


> > You give the impression that the only way of writing 9p fileservers and 
> > consumer-oriented applications on Plan 9 is with pure C, and that this
> > will always be the only  way, and that it should always be the only
> > way. 
> 
> No, I said, that we use file servers in Plan 9, that speak 9P or the
> appropriate syscalls.
>

Appologies for misinterpreting your words.

I had got the impression that you were rejecting the notion that using an 
object-oriented language with some higher-level libraries is a potentially 
more suitable basis as the foundation for a more fully-realized integrated 
user environment on Plan 9 than is pure-C.


> C is just good taste, but you can still do the same in whatever language you 
> like. 
> 

That seems reasonable.

Which low-level languages besides C are currently available on Plan 9? 

For instance, I was merely asking about objective-c; which is not an option at 
this time, nor will it perhaps ever be an option if current gcc and it's ugly friends 
are not ported. Alas, the world may never see my all-new, totally awesome os.

So here's the rub - whatever existing language and/or environment besides
C or perhaps Limbo one would like to use under Plan 9, requires either a port, 
or a complete rewrite. But there appears to be some negative-feedback  on 
porting the gnu-land toolchain, and complete rewrites require unrealistic
amounts of time and effort and man hours to implement


Cheers,

Corey