From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <76b728111b9c7ec7b46d9decac38fb4b@coraid.com>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@coraid.com>
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2007 21:40:53 -0400
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] slow performance
In-Reply-To: <e510e47e0703311635u14c92bb3kff0855ec3731766e@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 39f00df2-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Sat Mar 31 19:35:39 EDT 2007, ph.rpguo@gmail.com wrote:

> So, plan 9 wasnt made for, hmm, heavy computing tasks, like 2 milions of
> calls of recursive functions
> working with some complex data structure (not my data structure, hehe), or
> something like that?

rather, when there was a conflict between squeezing every last cycle
out of the machine or simplicity, the designers of plan 9 generally
opted for simplicity.  when there was a conflict between generality
and performance, the bias was toward generality.

the beauty of plan 9 is sum of these well-thought-out choices.
as you point out, these choices are always worth revisiting.
they seem to be working well for the time being.

btw, plan 9 is perfectly well-suited to your examples.

- erik