From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <86ipx4s36p.fsf@cmarib.ramside> <86ei7ry76s.fsf@cmarib.ramside> <86zkqf46vz.fsf@cmarib.ramside> <86mxmfuiep.fsf_-_@cmarib.ramside> Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2011 09:47:01 -0800 Message-ID: From: David Leimbach To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016e644def2862e20049b503c46 Subject: Re: [9fans] Modern development language for Plan 9, WAS: Re: RESOLVED: recoving important header file rudely Topicbox-Message-UUID: a836f74a-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 --0016e644def2862e20049b503c46 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:54 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: > > There was some mention that, during the history of Plan 9, developers > > had difficulty maintaining two different languages on the system. I > > wonder how much of that difficulty would still apply today. Although > > the kernel could concievably be translated to a modern compiled > > language, I doubt it could be written in Go. If Go were used, then, > > there would still have to be two languages/compilers/development > > environments on the system. > > although the proof is in the putting, i don't see why a kernel > in principle, can't be written in go, or a slightly restricted subset > of go. > Wait, isn't it "the proof is in the *pudding*"? YOU MEAN WE DON'T GET FRENCH BENEFITS!?! > > - erik > > --0016e644def2862e20049b503c46 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 4:54 AM, erik qua= nstrom <quans= tro@quanstro.net> wrote:
> There was some mention that, during the history of P= lan 9, developers
> had difficulty maintaining two different languages on the system. =A0I=
> wonder how much of that difficulty would still apply today. =A0Althoug= h
> the kernel could concievably be translated to a modern compiled
> language, I doubt it could be written in Go. =A0If Go were used, then,=
> there would still have to be two languages/compilers/development
> environments on the system.

although the proof is in the putting, i don't see why a kernel in principle, can't be written in go, or a slightly restricted subset of go.

Wait, isn't it "the pro= of is in the *pudding*"? =A0YOU MEAN WE DON'T GET FRENCH BENEFITS!= ?!
=A0

- erik


--0016e644def2862e20049b503c46--