From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Good enough approximation for ape/pcc From: Brantley Coile Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2006 10:50:55 -0400 In-Reply-To: <5b89693ff647f1ad780d21c8d1981ef5@terzarima.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3659d570-ead1-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Breaking from a thought habit can be hard. It's just our habit to think that we are limited to a single C compiler on our system. Why not have two compilers, gcc for linux, and ?[acl] for other stuff? On Plan 9 we have c89 to compile foreign code. I would rather compile applications on Linux using kenc any day. P9p is doing something different, so it's using the right compiler for its job. I have two machines on my desk, a plan 9 terminal and a Mac. It took a little effort to break the thought habit that I have only one machine. Same is true about compilers. We can, and do, have more than one. > i must say i don't see the point though. > in many ways, ?[acl] are attractive as a whole. (the > way it is done and the distribution of the work is part > of the point, although it's worth noting that the > arrangement isn't novel to it.) going back to .s production seems a > retrograde step to me. indeed, some thought so even > in the 1970s! it's fairly typical of gnu to have > stuck with it.