Re: [9fans] mk time-check/slice issue

[Blake McBride <blake@mcbride.name>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2473 bytes --]

On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at 11:07 AM, <a@9srv.net> wrote:

> // If you are working on a project, edit some files, and then
> // perform a mk, if files you haven't changed get built, I for
> // one would constantly question myself, about whether or
> // not I changed that file.  It would make things confusing.
>
> It's confusing because it doesn't match your expectations,
> but that's just as much because you're misunderstanding
> the intent of the tool. mk is not a tool for checking for
> changes, it is a tool for ensuring things are up to date. It
> just isn't designed to provide what you're looking for. That
> isn't to say that what you're looking for is unreasonable,
> but mk is not the tool to provide it.
>
> As an aside, I'd suggest learning to simply not worry about
> it. Internalize the fact that mk will sometimes rebuild things
> that don't strictly need it, but will ensure that things are up
> to date, and you'll have an easier time of it.
>
> // I for one favor practical usefulness over theoretical
> // correctness.
>
> You have not demonstrated anything that significantly
> impacts mk's practical usefullness. The fact that mk will, in
> some cases, rebuild things which don't need it doesn't
> significantly impact its utility for its intended purpose.
>
> In Plan 9, the heirarchy of values is different from other
> systems. Correctness (theoretical or otherwise) and
> elegance come above utility. That's not to say there are
> no tradeoffs in the system, but if you're going to give up
> even a little bit of correctness or elegance (environment
> variables?!?), you'd best be prepared to demonstrate a
> rather substantial utility gain. Given how much use this
> community has gotten out of mk over the past ~27
> years, I think it's safe to say we're not sold.
>
> Anthony
>
>
>
What I am beginning to understand from comments like this is that there is
a "club Plan-9".  Everything ever done by the originators of "club Plan-9"
is correct, period.  No mater what exceptions, special cases, or good new
ideas occur, they are wrong and we will find some way of rationalizing
"club Plan-9".  Anyone can join "club Plan-9" if you buy into that
assumption.  The main purpose of Plan-9 forks (with some exceptions) is to
port to new hardware.  Messing with the premise of "club Plan-9" is
significantly frowned upon and attacked.

Just a newbie's (with 35 years experience) perception.

Blake

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6204 bytes --]