From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4cab76f2a17f37355f0a72b3dc2a820d@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] asn.1 alternatives
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 16:53:16 +0000
In-Reply-To: <20060211162827.GR1620@augusta.math.psu.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: fc3246e8-ead0-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> made for the implementation.  An extreme example would be, say, if I were
> writing a Windows application.  I probably don't have much ability to write
> it for another system (Unix, Plan 9, whatever) instead because I'd prefer
> that.

that isn't quite what i was suggesting (it was fairly carefully worded): in such a case you
probably wouldn't have made `a problem go away', but rather introduced a new one
because your solution was quite possibly fine but for a different environment.

as a small concrete example, some of our grid users run existing Windows
binaries for which source is unavailable, so the application does need to
run on Windows (or perhaps a close emulation of it), and trying to
convert it (say) to Limbo isn't particularly helpful; on the other hand,
that still doesn't stop us using Inferno to build the grid infrastructure well
and pleasantly (and without using XML or web services anywhere, as it happens),
within the Windows environment.

i wasn't suggesting one had carte blanche, just that it's often possible to
find more freedom than one might initially expect in providing the solution;
i also pointed out that anything off-beat might need to work really well
to keep them happy [on the golf course] (but then, if it doesn't, why use it?)

one point i didn't make, but ought to have done, is that it can be a little
trickier when one is in competition for work, but even there it can be done.