@Lucio: I still hope that some clone of plan9/nix/nxm will merge with Go
... just my dream, and I am just an embryo of a programmer
(as multiply stated here and elsewhere) so take it easy.... however, I'm
moving all my old  stuff (and creating new one) to Go
[unfortunately, I am afraid I will never see the 9GoNix OS ;-) brought into
life]

Cheers,
peter.

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:

> > Except that C is a great language because it is both high
> > level enough and low level (near machine) that a compiler written in C
> > without optimizations and pure integer is "easy" (less expensive) to
> > write from scratch. Here, the dependencies increase.
>
> I wouldn't cry too many tears over GCC.  Having investigated Hogan's
> port of GCC (3.0) to Plan 9, my impression is that GCC would never
> really fit in with the Plan 9 paradigm, it is way too expensive and
> unrewarding to bend it into shape, C++ notwithstanding.
>
> Hence Go, together with the upgraded (if you want to call them that)
> Plan 9 development tools.  I'm still of the opinion that a convergence
> of the Plan 9 tools and the Go development can become the Esperanto of
> information technology, given that ease of portability to foreign
> architectures is a founding principle.  Only time will tell, sadly I
> don't see any organisation or authoritative person recommending 8c et
> al for development, where I expect that would be a step forward.
>
> The obsession with optimisation, in part, is to be blamed, too.  But
> not alone.
>
> Just as a side note, I was hoping to port Plan 9 to the Olimex
> LinuXino, one of many project that may or may not see the light of
> day.  It comes with some or other variety of Linux, but has too little
> memory (64MiB) to be more than an embedded prototyping system and the
> default Linux release comes without the GCC development system.  It
> struck me that the Go system could be cross-compiled for Linux/Arm on
> my Plan 9 network and used on the LinuXino.  In fact, I have
> implemented some small applications in this way although I have had no
> occasion to do more than that.  If I could figure a way to compile the
> Go distribution with its own tools, I may be able to prove that Go is
> a viable release development system without GCC backing it, something
> we have shown to a smaller audience with the Plan9/386 distribution.
>
> ++L
>
>
>