From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\)) From: Francisco J Ballesteros In-Reply-To: Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 18:30:41 +0100 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: References: <20130323100519.GA3980@polynum.com> <19750d1b50c54941f031f57dc4be456e@proxima.alt.za> <5099C9E8-C6E8-4B6B-A609-B5BDCA6C332F@lsub.org> <5C91EC08-2559-4DA8-B6F3-9293747EEFE8@gmail.com> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc not an option for Plan9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 315722d8-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Although, in general, I agree. I think that having the resources doesn't mean we have to consume them (although we might if that pays off, of course). For example, looking at what go install does wrt what a few mkfiles would do for the same go source is illustrative of what I'm trying to say. On Mar 23, 2013, at 6:15 PM, Rob Pike wrote: > Much of which is symbols. Plus, a a simple computer has gigs of memory. > > Yes, it's remarkable how much bigger programs are now than they were > 20 years ago, but 20 years ago the same things were being said. I > understand your objection - I really do - but it's time to face the > future. The smart phone in your pocket is roughly 100 times faster > than the machine Plan 9 was developed on and has 1000 times the RAM. > Computers are incredibly powerful now, and the technologies of today > can use that power well (as I claim Go does) or poorly (as some others > do), or ignore it at the risk of obsolescence. > > -rob