From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3D7571D0.5060604@san.rr.com> From: Eric Dorman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:0.9.4.1) Gecko/20020314 Netscape6/6.2.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: plan 9 References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 19:37:04 -0700 Topicbox-Message-UUID: e4836bd6-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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