* [9fans] emacs vs plan9
@ 2004-04-10 6:11 David Tolpin
2004-04-10 6:32 ` Rob Pike
2004-04-10 16:28 ` ron minnich
0 siblings, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: David Tolpin @ 2004-04-10 6:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Hi,
this is not cheating or trolling, really. I had written quite a bit of
parallel, asynchronously and synchronously intercommunicating code for
emacs.
GNU Emacs is an OS with multitasking, good API for parallel programming,
and a single unifying paradigm:
everything is an edit buffer.
Including special devices, directories etc.
What are advantages of Plan9's
everything is a file server
over it?
David Tolpin
http://davidashen.net/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] emacs vs plan9
2004-04-10 6:11 [9fans] emacs vs plan9 David Tolpin
@ 2004-04-10 6:32 ` Rob Pike
2004-04-10 7:41 ` David Tolpin
2004-04-10 16:28 ` ron minnich
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Rob Pike @ 2004-04-10 6:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
saying 'everything is an edit buffer' doesn't get you very far.
you still need to talk about naming, authentication, security,
remote access, and so on. you do get a user interface, though,
and that is clearly a powerful starting point.
saying 'everything is a file' brings along with it everything to
do with files that we're already familiar with: naming, permissions,
security, and so on. a really telling detail is that network file systems
are well understood, so if we make everything a file we immediately
have remote access to everything. we don't have a user interface
to something, at least the way emacs has (editing etc.) but we do
have shell scripts and other ways to build things from basics.
'better' is a bad term when comparing system design. the goals
of systems differ. but i think that 'file' brings more powerful and
systems-capable ideas to the table than does 'edit buffer'.
-rob
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] emacs vs plan9
2004-04-10 6:32 ` Rob Pike
@ 2004-04-10 7:41 ` David Tolpin
2004-04-12 1:54 ` Kenji Okamoto
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: David Tolpin @ 2004-04-10 7:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Rob,
thanks a lot for the explanation. I think I understood it.
David
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] emacs vs plan9
2004-04-10 6:11 [9fans] emacs vs plan9 David Tolpin
2004-04-10 6:32 ` Rob Pike
@ 2004-04-10 16:28 ` ron minnich
2004-04-10 16:53 ` boyd, rounin
2004-04-10 16:55 ` Russ Cox
1 sibling, 2 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2004-04-10 16:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
interesting, I saw a talk from a bellcore dude in 1990 who was using emacs
for distributed/parallel programming for telco stuff.
emacs is kind of a poor man's lisp machine for those who remember such.
Emacs could run under plan 9, plan 9 can not run under emacs. I guess I
think of one of these as a superset of the other, guess which one :-)
ron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] emacs vs plan9
2004-04-10 16:28 ` ron minnich
@ 2004-04-10 16:53 ` boyd, rounin
2004-04-10 16:55 ` Russ Cox
1 sibling, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: boyd, rounin @ 2004-04-10 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> emacs is kind of a poor man's lisp machine for those who remember such.
that reminds me of the vi(1) [editor] turing machine.
> Emacs could run under plan 9, plan 9 can not run under emacs. I guess I
> think of one of these as a superset of the other, guess which one :-)
could you port plan 9 to the vi(1) turing machine?
;)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] emacs vs plan9
2004-04-10 16:28 ` ron minnich
2004-04-10 16:53 ` boyd, rounin
@ 2004-04-10 16:55 ` Russ Cox
2004-04-12 2:14 ` ron minnich
1 sibling, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Russ Cox @ 2004-04-10 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> plan 9 can not run under emacs.
are you sure? plan 9 is typically pretty
easy to port to a new architecture.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] emacs vs plan9
2004-04-10 7:41 ` David Tolpin
@ 2004-04-12 1:54 ` Kenji Okamoto
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: Kenji Okamoto @ 2004-04-12 1:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> thanks a lot for the explanation. I think I understood it.
You should read Rob's comment with deepest attention
what he is really saying. His word is always terse enough
for us. ☺
You must be careful this philosophy is not always been kept
in the present Plan 9 distribution. I don't know the reason,
however, I guess everything has done in the restriction of
time and man powers... If you are a kind of programmer
who wants to invent something and has skills for it, you will
find many interesting targets in the present Plan 9 dsitribution.
I'm aware of it, however, unfortunately, I have no such good
skill, sigh... This must be a target for young skilled programmer,
I think.
Kenji
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] emacs vs plan9
2004-04-10 16:55 ` Russ Cox
@ 2004-04-12 2:14 ` ron minnich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2004-04-12 2:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
On Sat, 10 Apr 2004, Russ Cox wrote:
> are you sure? plan 9 is typically pretty
> easy to port to a new architecture.
oh, all right, lack of existence does not prove you can't run plan 9 under
emacs.
ron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] emacs vs plan9
2004-04-10 18:19 Keith Nash
@ 2004-04-12 2:16 ` ron minnich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 10+ messages in thread
From: ron minnich @ 2004-04-12 2:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Re that person I mentioned who did a distributed computing environment in
emacs in 1990. Best quote:
"We don't do ODE or PDE in this environment, because we are the phone
company, and we don't care".
Great quote, although I am sure that from time to time the phone guys do
an occasional ODE or PDE.
ron
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] emacs vs plan9
@ 2004-04-10 18:19 Keith Nash
2004-04-12 2:16 ` ron minnich
0 siblings, 1 reply; 10+ messages in thread
From: Keith Nash @ 2004-04-10 18:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
> GNU Emacs is an OS with multitasking, good API for parallel programming
GNU/Emacs is a great OS - I just wish it had a better text editor.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 10+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-04-12 2:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-04-10 6:11 [9fans] emacs vs plan9 David Tolpin
2004-04-10 6:32 ` Rob Pike
2004-04-10 7:41 ` David Tolpin
2004-04-12 1:54 ` Kenji Okamoto
2004-04-10 16:28 ` ron minnich
2004-04-10 16:53 ` boyd, rounin
2004-04-10 16:55 ` Russ Cox
2004-04-12 2:14 ` ron minnich
2004-04-10 18:19 Keith Nash
2004-04-12 2:16 ` ron minnich
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).