From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <03BDF13C-41F0-44B4-930B-EC8E8D31E3DC@lsub.org>
References: <03BDF13C-41F0-44B4-930B-EC8E8D31E3DC@lsub.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 2009 14:29:35 +0000
Message-ID: <df49a7370903200729m3fde7024wbffaba94eeddf5ec@mail.gmail.com>
From: roger peppe <rogpeppe@gmail.com>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] Raw Input Driver
Topicbox-Message-UUID: c0b88bd2-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

2009/3/20 Francisco J Ballesteros <nemo@lsub.org>:
> El 20/03/2009, a las 14:07, rogpeppe@gmail.com escribi=C3=B3:
>> so you end up with a smart client or split application,
>> which lack the same easy composability that you get
>> from plan 9's remote devices.

perhaps i should have written "generality and easy composability"
there. i'm sure it's possible to make easily composable applications
with other metaphors (octupus being one example) but is it
possible to do so without making some strong assumptions
about the user-interaction model of the application?