Re: [9fans] python

["Bruce Ellis" <bruce.ellis@gmail.com>]

i think python will crush you ... that is its evolutionary purpose.

brucee

On 1/5/07, Dave Lukes <davel@anvil.com> wrote:
> There may be the germ of an insane but possibly usable idea here ...
>
> What we need is a facility by which a program can glue together a bunch
> of object files
> when it's run ...
>
> Now ?l can already do the gluing,
> so why not replace any program that requires dynamic libraries with an
> rc script
> that links together all the required object files together on the fly
> into a temporary file,
> then executes the resultant file then removes it.
>
> Yes, it's psychotic, but so are shared libs.
>
> Of course, if you want to link at run-time rather than execute-time,
> you're out of luck, but, pedantically, it will do most of what linux
> does with .so files
> with no changes lower down.
>
>    DaveL
> (who's on holiday in Sydney and thinks that the next plan9 conference
> definitely ought to be here).
>
> erik quanstrom wrote:
> > perhaps my assembly-language addled brain is just rebelling, but my snarky reaction
> > to this python thread is this:
> >
> >       eh,  while you're at it, why not just run the whole dynamicly-bound
> >       bit in a 386-emulator.  that way, when movietunes3000 really wants some
> >       bit of linux, you can just run it in the emulator.
> >
> >       or, Just Run Linux™.
> >
> > my slightly more thoughtful reaction is, why does the operating system need to control
> > the late-linking process?  (python doesn't really need .so shared libraries per se, does it?)
> > to me this seems more like a linker problem than anything else.  why not write your own?
> > you could write an rc script to gather the bits and waah laa. ... ooh, ron.  i just invented
> > linker scripts. ;-)
> >
> > - erik
> >
>
>