From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <46CA10CC.8090402@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 18:08:12 -0400 From: Robert William Fuller User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.10 (X11/20070515) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: everything is a directory References: <20070820195340.945DAC69DC@mail.cse.psu.edu> <46CA078F.8000403@gmail.com> <5d375e920708201457jb64ba9br685c51f3b9ba6cc5@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <5d375e920708201457jb64ba9br685c51f3b9ba6cc5@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: ae5f31cc-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Uriel wrote: >> Finally, to argue that files are not objects seems silly. They ARE >> objects. They have properties. They have well defined interfaces for >> manipulating those properties. A more reasonable argument may be that >> they are not object oriented since they lack certain prerequisites such >> as inheritance and abstraction, both mechanisms of extensibility. > > In Plan 9 (and originally in Unix) files are the main abstraction, so > I'm not sure what you mean when you say they lack it; but they do lack > inheritance, and that is a good thing, I have never seen any good come > from inheritance. This is true. Files are an abstraction. However, we are talking about two different levels of abstraction. You are talking about the level of abstraction at the operating system interface. I'm talking about the level of abstraction available within the file construct. >> What a way to introduce myself to the list. I'm sure I'm making friends >> fast :-p > > Just be glad that boyd is not around anymore ;) Should I search the archives for boyd for my entertainment :-)