From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <730eae2365e8ddd3220c84d7de81b8a1@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 09:28:24 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <5d375e920901180314t48cde099t3f36fea79afd180d@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] =?utf-8?q?Les_Mis=C3=A9rables?=
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 82156ce2-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

>
> I seem to remember Mjl, the author if the inferno ircfs, wrote an
> ircfs for Plan 9 ages ago. Still, seems like a total waste of time
> when you have a perfectly fine one in limbo, which is a much more
> convenient language for building such a thing anyway.
>

the op said he was running plan 9.  if we take that as a
reasonable thing to be doing, then it makes sense to
want to run native plan 9 programs for a number of
reasons.  first, if the op doesn't have any inferno running
already, he doesn't need to install and figure out how
to run it.  not that this is hard, but it is important to
admit this is an extra step.  once installed, plan 9 tools
like ps and  kill won't work on inferno procs.  so one
need to either deal with the disconnect or write some
scripts to make it less evident.

none of this is specific to plan 9 and inferno.  the same
could be said using bsd and 9vx or linux and a browser
running browser procs.

so, since an ircfs is not a huge project, i don't think
it's unreasonable to write one for plan 9.  it's what i
would do.

- erik