From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\)) From: Jeff Sickel In-Reply-To: <2a32cfdd4e6c816b2a6ac2e5a1ae5ad5@proxima.alt.za> Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2013 01:04:32 -0600 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: References: <2a32cfdd4e6c816b2a6ac2e5a1ae5ad5@proxima.alt.za> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: [9fans] Go port [was Re: Go and 21-bit runes (and a bit of Go status)] Topicbox-Message-UUID: 92b5fd10-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 The Go =91builder=92 for Plan 9 386 is on the chopping block: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/golang-dev/QW4zUbMHMBM https://code.google.com/p/go-wiki/wiki/PortingPolicy Lucio, there is no symbiotic relationship between Plan 9 and Go. Go is its own language, and maybe eventually platform, that does share some history with Plan 9 and various other spin offs. But though it started with a few people who happened to have worked on Plan 9 in the past to hone their ideas, the minimal stubs used in Go that are similar to core Plan 9 libraries are just that, mechanisms to bootstrap the language. Taking libc and libbio and the initial C toolchain is a great way to start. I do think they=92ve done a very nice job at getting the language off the ground on several platforms. And it=92s great to see the Go talks and references back to CSP. But at the end of the day, Go is a very different research platform that doesn=92t really map onto what draws many of us to Plan 9. It=92s a great tool to have in the shop, but like any combo-tool, sometimes you just have to put it on the bench so you can really use the kW CO2 laser without being distracted. On Dec 4, 2013, at 12:19 AM, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: >> what would we recover from? divergence? go never left the building >> as it wasn't in the building to begin with. i think this is likely = what >> you may be missing. >=20 > Are you suggesting that any efforts to keep Go and Plan 9 in sync > should be measured purely against short term gain? To me, that makes > Plan 9 a superfluous platform for Go: the cost of maintaining the > port(s) would never be recoverable in deployment of Go applications to > any Plan 9 platform. >=20 > On the other hand, if Go and Plan 9 continue to influence each other's > development and philosophy, I think both will benefit, as well as > their respective communities. The discussion here, superficial as it > is, is a case in point. >=20 > ++L >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20