From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 3 Mar 2013 19:39:45 -0500 From: Kurt H Maier To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20130304003945.GA40058@intma.in> References: <20130303191130.GA13319@intma.in> <20130303192824.GA14748@intma.in> <911ca24da6d95f3c9cd5145a6fe4aad8@brasstown.quanstro.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [9fans] doing a native awk port (was Re: Bug in print(2) g verb) Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2351e07e-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Sun, Mar 03, 2013 at 07:10:09PM -0500, Dan Cross wrote: > On Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 2:31 PM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > > should i say "the current ot awk source"? it's certainly not > > designed for plan 9. > > > > Regardless you are right that it is clearly not worth porting to 'native' > Plan 9 libraries or APIs; what, if anything, would be the benefit of such > an effort? > > - Dan C. Not worth *what*? Someone else's time? The only reason we're talking about a bug in print(2) is because of this waste-of-time native awk work. This isn't some kind of zero-sum game where the opportunity cost of someone making a native awk is depriving us of valuable other software. Pretty much anything anyone writes for plan 9 is 'not worth it' from an economical perspective; pretending Program A is worth less than Program B is a little silly. In the meantime Paul has fun, finds bugs to fix, and I'm one step closer to eradicating ape on my systems. He doesn't answer to 9fans; stop trying to get him to justify himself to you. khm