From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <2621.199.98.16.93.1066410500.squirrel@wish> In-Reply-To: <7f68bb19aa8d8ecb13d5f53c96524b1a@centurytel.net> References: <7f68bb19aa8d8ecb13d5f53c96524b1a@centurytel.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] porting from vs. porting to Plan 9 From: "Joel Salomon" To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2003 13:08:20 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7105e3b2-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 Steve said: > However being able to write code for and on plan 9 and > then just re-compile it with a library for Windows and > X11 would be wonderfull. Skip Tavakkolian said: > I think there could be other reasons for this. I would rather program > graphics using libdraw because it would be save me time and effort > just in dealing with various OS's graphic subsystem complexities. > Doing things in libdraw, I would guess, not win the "flashy-eye-candy" > contest; but if that is not what you're aiming at, it is okay. Offer people clean, fast libraries and code in general will be improved. "Saving" or "rescuing" Plan 9? The basic benefits of Plan 9 seem to be for the programmer, or for specialized purposes like distributed (flames to /dev/null). The guy who uses my program probably likes WinXP because it "handles multimedia better than previous versions". *I* want to use Plan 9 because it "lets me do what I want to without getting in my way". Hence, the ports. --Joel