Re: [9fans] alright, this should be interesting

[Russ Cox <russcox@gmail.com>]

You're claiming that the "software quality" of the
underlying kernel somehow plays a role in determining
the "software quality" of the software written on top of
it, presumably by providing an example for others to
follow.

I agree with the general point -- people exposed to examples
of clean software are more likely to write clean software --
but I think you've gone overboard.

Specifically, I don't see why the kernel should be placed
in such a position of importance.  I think the effect is true
of any software.  I hung around Bell Labs for at least a
year before I started using Plan 9, but the programs
that I wrote during that time got a lot cleaner because I
was exposed to good clean code, but it wasn't the kernels.
I was using Linux at home and SGI Irix at Bell Labs.

Also, your particular example is definitely flawed:

    Kernels are also important in the sense that they set
    the tone for everything above them: kencc wouldn't have
    happened on linux, for example.

The cleanliness of Plan 9's kernel and the cleanliness of
the C compilers are definitely correlated, but not directly.
They're clean because Ken was intimately involved in both.
If Ken had been using some other system, even Linux, and
was writing a compiler, I'm confident he could have pulled
off the same trick.  In fact, my understanding is that the
compilers happened in preparation for the kernel, so the
kernel can't take credit.

Russ