From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v750) In-Reply-To: <200606071539.43140.corey_s@qwest.net> References: <12bd3e4eeac406a7b2df5a203eb80021@vitanuova.com> <200606071407.14245.corey_s@qwest.net> <20060607231633.313b478e.20h@r-36.net> <200606071539.43140.corey_s@qwest.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <8662681E-86A2-44BD-B63D-4A8E8BF3BC7A@telus.net> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Paul Lalonde Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc on plan9 Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2006 15:49:13 -0700 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5def9728-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 7-Jun-06, at 3:39 PM, Corey wrote: > > You also make it sound as though higher-level libraries and/or > object-oriented > programming on Plan 9 are a complete waste in all circumstances. Plan 9 is object-oriented. The objects have a file-like abstraction and interactions with the objects are mediated by a network protocol that abstracts all the network messiness away. C++ on Plan 9 is a whole other issue. It's bad enough that it has invaded my work life, having it invade my hobby computing environment would just make me sad. And most C++ is at best what I'd call naively object oriented. C-with-classes is a better name, and, frankly, more palatable than what's it has grown into. I can easily imagine a nice smalltalk implementation for Plan 9 that plays well with the 9P servers. That would be sexy. But C-double- cross is not compatible with Plan 9's "do it cleanly" aesthetic. Paul -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (Darwin) iD8DBQFEh1fppJeHo/Fbu1wRAsVIAJ469IFwZuhl1KIk0LrPDtPfQxovhACcDlzW bFdDAwIeg5QbUZswMFokhzo= =EObv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----