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 08:48:52 -0500 Message-ID: From: "Devon H. O'Dell" To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [9fans] Modern development language for Plan 9, WAS: Re: RESOLVED: recoving important header file rudely Topicbox-Message-UUID: a7fde892-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 2011/2/2 erik quanstrom : >> There was some mention that, during the history of Plan 9, developers >> had difficulty maintaining two different languages on the system. =A0I >> wonder how much of that difficulty would still apply today. =A0Although >> 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. There existed part of the tree called "pchw," renamed "tiny" and then removed due to lack of maintenance that used the xv6 bootloader and implemented a tiny "Hello, World" kernel. It's clear that some changes would have to be made for a serious kernel (ensuring not blocking in an interrupt handler for instance), but it's certainly possible -- and has been done -- with the language as-is. --dho > - erik > >