From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <2d40d3bd22669001e2af9d4cbef5accd@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] speaking of kenc
Date: Sun,  6 May 2007 09:40:24 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <463D7F37.2040001@conducive.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5c923da8-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>> That C and not assembler ought to be the target language, no matter
>> the application.  That assembler is deprecated in favour of C.
> 
> If that ever comes to pass, I'm going back to a wire-wrap tool.
> 
I don't see why.  I did post the sum-total of assembler coding in the
Plan 9 source directory, libraries and kernel code excluded.  Has that
sent you back to the wire-wrap tool yet?

Nobody said that C had to be the highest common denominator, only that
it should be the lowest, instead of asm.

> There *can be no* one-size fits-all final answers unless and until all progress 
> is to be called off and stagnation and decline to the death are mandated from 
> on-high.
> 
That is a view from an uncommon position.  It so happens that our
brain can "evolve" much more rapidly than any other organism, with
mutations occurring on a very small timescale.  But that perspective
is unique to that particular condition.  And one can philosophise on
how useful this continuous mutation really is.

> Not even for biologicals with billion+ year history.
> 
Ever wondered how old the nearest amoeba is?  From his point of view,
we're just a passing phase :-)

> 'adapt or die' may have long cycle, but it is an unforgiving one.

As you go higher in evolutionary complexity, this becomes more
important, but it's an artifact, not a natural principle.  It stems
from organic complexity that is more dependent on active conditions.
The ability to deal with environmental change without need to mutate
seems to me to be more powerful than the ability to mutate at the
slightest whim.

C is one such paradigm.  Consider that early versions of Windows (up
to 3.1, perhaps) were written in Pascal; at the time that was
Microsoft's bet for the future.  C took over from Pascal and only
Microsoft can document the pain and gain of moving to it.  That C is
still around today, one dares say _despite_ interference from various
well-meaning committees, speaks volume to the genius of its inventors.
I don't think it was blind luck, I think it was genius.  That
something may eventually supersede C is unarguable, but I think it
will take a very large paradigm shift to make that possible or
necessary.

++L