From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1233613133.4412.397.camel@goose.sun.com>
References: <4f34febc0901312147m1ae91148oa384c00bb2430b1d@mail.gmail.com>
	<1d7d61e068228cc77ea1f53fc7eb4459@quanstro.net>
	<4f34febc0901312327h2fe297bk490d3ee36faac5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<140e7ec30902021125k6ffb0e9fic8a8152dd8f05ea8@mail.gmail.com>
	<4f34febc0902021322x12767a07rcffdbe8d1c349438@mail.gmail.com>
	<3e1162e60902021332k2fd57392ob6b0e840cae4d6c6@mail.gmail.com>
	<13426df10902021412x7f7440a7j5268c4db41b4dee2@mail.gmail.com>
	<1233613133.4412.397.camel@goose.sun.com>
Date: Mon,  2 Feb 2009 23:22:48 +0100
Message-ID: <8ccc8ba40902021422v201ac2e6x6a850a3802fbb602@mail.gmail.com>
From: Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Pegasus 2.6 is released
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9292abc0-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

But can't you `script' by calling an external program, sending it your
input, and reading its output?

I understand that if you have a language (say limbo) that requires loadable
modules then it's another thing.

However, if you want, say, to be able to process web pages or whatever just
by applying different modules. Why can't them be different processes?

You can just pipe your data through them.

On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Roman V. Shaposhnik <rvs@sun.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 14:12 -0800, ron minnich wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM, David Leimbach <leimy2k@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > They solve the same class of problems, if you step back far enough.
>> > If your application's mechanism of dealing with processing is to use the
>> > namespace, then binding new functionality over old is roughly equivalent to
>> > a plugin mechanism.
>>
>>
>> I hate to be the one to bring this up but ... if you are providing
>> some extended (e.g.) math functionality to a program with a shared
>> library, people are going to be upset with you if you argue that it
>> can be done with RPC.
>>
>> I hope the reason is obvious :-)
>
> It is. It is a trivial case, after all. In non-trivial ones, the
> same kind of discussion used to be quite popular in OpenMP vs.
> MPI circles. And I shouldn't be the one to tell you where it
> is going, right?
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
>
>