Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9

[quanstro@quanstro.net]

On Thu Jun  8 12:23:51 CDT 2006, corey_s@qwest.net wrote:
> 
> Disclaimer:  by this point, I have no hope or intent of 'pursuading' 
> anybody, I'm just writing this to clarify my position, because I get
> the feeling that I've been misunderstood.
> 
> On Thursday 08 June 2006 00:08, cej@gli.cas.cz wrote:
> > IMHO, I don't see any advantage in having gnustep/openstep/nextstep
> > stuff (except, maybe, displayPS/PDF), on Plan9.
> >
> 
> 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.  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?

> Now, I'm not going to argue the subjective merits of objective-c vs. plain c; 
> but I'm not the only programmer in the world who prefers an object-oriented 
> language, and who enjoys such features as dynamic dispatch/typing/loading, 
> reflection, forwarding, etc., etc.

have you tried using plan 9 as it is?  my experience has been that the plan 9
"environment" has been a very effective argument against many of the "latest"
fads.  though, objective c is far from the latest thing.

i wrote a several 100k lines of code for commercial projects.  a good percentage
was datatype libraries -- lists, avl trees, hash tables etc.  with the exception of 
libString, plan 9 doesn't rely on fancy datatypes.  plan 9 structures define exactly
the bits they need and no more.  it went against my instincts, but it works
quite well. after all, why do we need a library to implement list traversal?

- erik