From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAJQ9t7gZHS_0gED3Luu9dJYuvCkhgr-+gpfPGf0BkixgU9T5Vg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK=u2EV-0bU82kq3RiTARJwWjXJsi4HyDq9seen3ETmQdAp_Fg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+cCjXr2nQv1qghErctdmn5pEMOK5eyUZ4ZNd6tBPgBe+rV+Kw@mail.gmail.com>
	<8fe7f4f0-f6bc-2ba1-468f-517d27817259@gmail.com>
	<CAJQ9t7gZHS_0gED3Luu9dJYuvCkhgr-+gpfPGf0BkixgU9T5Vg@mail.gmail.com>
From: hiro <23hiro@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2019 14:33:20 +0200
Message-ID: <CAFSF3XOif450WHW1BcRAc0bHMVVOc6FH-Nxc-jLPHkAwe3dY4w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [9fans] building Alef language
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0a45dbce-eada-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

good point, but is the attention that go gets now also crippling plan9? :)

On 9/21/19, Lucio De Re <lucio.dere@gmail.com> wrote:
> I have a version for legacy Plan 9, lightly tested, that I have not
> looked at in ages.
>
> Happy to haul it out, but I see little value in it. Go may have
> idiosyncrasies, but it is much more suited to modern architectures.
> That said, had Go not surfaced, I would have much preferred Alef to
> many other options.
>
> Don't forget the rationale for dropping Alef: support for the
> language, across many architectures and including many libraries would
> have been crippling.
>
> Both of those are now Go's strong suits.
>
> Lucio.
>
> PS: A tar archive may be on sources under "proxima" - it's been a long
> time.
>
>