From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <160BE4B6-B0A1-47FC-9F5C-C26021164CE4@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <160BE4B6-B0A1-47FC-9F5C-C26021164CE4@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Message-Id: <62419D19-446D-4D83-96A6-17895A0B39FD@bitblocks.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable From: Bakul Shah Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 11:45:06 -0700 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] Go for systems programming Topicbox-Message-UUID: 598b0184-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On May 17, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Nemo wrote: > If you remove the features that make go interesting you'd get C without > punctuation symbols. Agreed. I don't see what's the big deal about doing GC In an OS kernel. And the feat= ures that make Go interesting can be useful at the kernel level too. On the other hand, may be the kernel can be made much more minimal and where= most everything is done by user level services. But as Erik says it wouldn'= t be plan9. In Go it might be more natural to have a syschannel instead of s= yscalls (actual syscalls might end up being just send and receive). On the other other hand, to really dethrone C, there needs to be a Go compil= er in Go and an OS in Go! We know both can be done but actually doing so can= throw up a bunch of surprises.=