From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <74201a055441d68b2cdc4e75889b9ab0@quanstro.net>
Date: Fri,  9 Jun 2006 17:46:25 -0500
From: quanstro@quanstro.net
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] quantity vs. quality
In-Reply-To: <3e1162e60606091544p5be17e81k201735720c8c1a1@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 659243fe-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri Jun  9 17:45:21 CDT 2006, leimy2k@gmail.com wrote:

> Except /sys/src/9/pc/pci.c that says it badly needs to be rewritten.
> Maybe a slightly less Kool-Aid drinking way to approach this would be
> to say "code that needs help is better marked, and there's less of
> that?"

i've never worked on or looked at the source code of any significant
program or kernel that didn't have some functions that either claim=20
to need or actually need "massive rewrites". =20

> Then again.  I've not personally audited the whole system, and it's
> not clear that I have the qualifications to say that Plan 9's source
> is better than other systems.

going only on the theory that deleted code is debugged code, plan 9
is likely has fewer problems and unintended consequences than unix
clones.

a fundamental mistake of linux-think is that anytime a function is
known to have limitations, fixing those limitations is a priori considere=
d
better than not.  many times, i think this boils down to local optimizati=
ons
that result in global pessimization.

>=20
> There's a lot of "belief" here that I think is "fundamentally"
> dangerous... as with anything.

belief is important.  where would the catholic church be without it? =E2=98=
=BA
if we do not believe that plan 9 is good, we'll all use something else.

- erik