From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: Caffienator Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <20011107192058.2C84D199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Rant (was Re: Plan9 and Ada95?) Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 10:38:34 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 19487254-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 In article <20011107192058.2C84D199E7@mail.cse.psu.edu>, "forsyth" wrote: >>>Let's get off the hobbyhorse of criticising all the alternative >>>platforms and actually co-operate with them or show that the Plan 9 way >>>is as superior as we make it out to be. > > you're possibly overlooking the possibility that some of us have written > things such as portable compilers (and other things) ourselves for a > good few other systems, and take that into account when making > comparisons -- it's not > just that this or that isn't Plan 9. I certainly didnt intend to start a flamewar with my post. Right now, I develop for Linux. Primarily because it's the simplest to use in regards to the development tools that are available. Sure, I could figure out how to jerry rig alot of those tools into Plan9, but I just dont have the time(for now) to do that sort of thing. I've been running Plan9 across a few local workstations, just to play around with it. It has alot of potential, and I would really like to develop for it, but the tools available on Plan9 are somewhat limited. With that being said, I do plan on developing some of my own tools and making them available to the Plan9 community, but the big ones, like an Ada compiler, just might be a little too much for me to bite off at this point. Now, Plan9 does have it's own C compiler. I dont suppose it would be impossible to integrate GNAT on top of that? Is there anything in GNAT that exclusively requires GCC? Can those issues be dealt with via a little select modification of the GNAT sources? Thoughts? Caffienator chris@dont.spam.me