From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <55be250fa871ed9b484f3725566b80f7@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  9 Jun 2006 08:15:23 -0500
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9
In-Reply-To: <200606090540.05841.corey_s@qwest.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 63c50750-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri Jun  9 07:41:19 CDT 2006, corey_s@qwest.net wrote:
> On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:00, quanstro@quanstro.net wrote:
> > On Thu Jun  8 12:23:51 CDT 2006, corey_s@qwest.net wrote:
> > > 
> > > C has something called a Standard Library, it provides lots of useful
> > > things when programming in C.
> > > 
> > > Imagine how outlandish it would sound if you said that you "don't see 
> > > any advantage in having C99 stuff on Plan 9"?
> > 
> > this doesn't make any sense to me.  
> >
> 
> Whoops, understandable! - I typed "C99", when I meant "libc".
> 
> 
> > while kenc supports most c99, some c99 
> > bits were excluded on purpose.  can you name a specific c99 bit and explain
> > why it's inclusion in plan9 would make plan 9 better?
> > 
> 
> 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 ).

regardless, my question remains the same.  can you name a specific c99 libc
bit that is missing and explain why it could make plan 9 better?

> I'd just like to use this space to thank everyone's patience, and to apologize if
> I managed to inadvertently ruffle-feathers or cause annoyance - I hope it can be
> seen that I'm being sincere, and that I do appreciate the opportunity to risk
> bouncing some semi half-baked ideas off the experts and professionals here
> on this list in a friendly manner; as I've mentioned before, quite honestly: I'm 
> merely a hobbyist and OS enthusiast.

i don't think anybodys feathers are ruffled.  i'm not yet convinced that objective c
would be a bad idea, but neither have you built any case for it.  what specific
objective c properties would be beneficial?

why don't you try using the system a bit.  write some code.  maybe read the aleph papers.
i'd be interested in what you thought objective c could offer then.

- erik