From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <3e1162e60606091412h1e776b34l9c31c663de8eb9b7@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006 14:12:28 -0700 From: "David Leimbach" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9 In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 64a85cbc-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On 6/9/06, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote: > On Fri Jun 9 12:25:53 CDT 2006, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > > Again, my mistake - I accidently crossed-wires by mentioning c99; when the > > > point I was trying make was to draw the parralel/similarity between C and libc, > > > and Obj-C and GNUstep ( or FoundationKit, or whatever ). > > > > Fact is, Plan 9 had a very promising new language called Alef, but it > > was preferable to drop it: the alternative was to spend unreasonable > > amounts of effort to keep the compiler and libraries compatible with > > newer releases of the operating system. I got to understand that bit > > pretty well when I attempted to port it to the newer platform. > > silly question: why wasn't c dropped in favor of aleph? > > - erik > > Yeah I actually don't think that's a silly question at all.