Re: [9fans] Re: plan 9

[Eric Dorman <edorman@san.rr.com>]

Russ Cox wrote:

>Ron's comment makes me think I should have explained
>myself a little more, and anyway I have a fun story.
>
>The whole fad OO argument saddens me, since Plan 9 probably
>pushes the real point of OO -- consistent and reused
>interfaces -- farther than any other system.  The problem
>with the current fad OO world is that there are hardly
>any consistently-used interfaces, so you lose all the
>potential reuse.  Plan 9 may only have one real interface
>but we sure do reuse it a LOT.  And we really do have
>many interfaces, such as the one presented to a cpu
>server by a terminal (and by drawterm), or the one
>presented to clients by kernel graphics drivers
>(and by rio, and by vncs, and by drawterm), or the
>authentication files presented by the 3e kernels
>(and by authfs), or the auth files presented by
>auth/factotum (and by auth/factotum, whenever you
>care to reinvoke it!), and on and on.  I would very much
>like to hear about any systems that are more object
>oriented.
>[xxx]
>Imagine if everything behaved like that, presenting
>good interfaces so that only the interface rather than
>the actual details of the implementation mattered.
>You'd have Plan 9.
>
>Russ
>
This all is precisely why I've pretty much setttled on a 9p2000/virtual
mount
architecture for my high-performance computing stuff rather than some
distributed-object protocol.  Avoid CORBA bloat and still be able to
rendezvous in Java, Smalltalk, C and C++.

Now if I could only run Plan9 on HPPA-MP, I'd be set :)

Eric Dorman