Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Dave MacFarlane]

On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>
> Plan 9 has not yet been re-implemented in Go.
>
> sl
>

I started trying to do that at one point, but never got my kernel much
farther than booting just enough to run "Hello, world!" compiled with
6c on a FAT filesystem in ring 0 and then crashing the system before
deciding I don't have the time to finish it or get it somewhere
useable. If anyone who has the time is interested in picking it up,
contact me off-list and I'll send you a link to my (horribly written
and designed) code.

I'm more of a userspace kinda guy anyways..

- Dave

Re: Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Bruce Ellis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1215 bytes --]

Looks like an interesting project and I wouldn't be surprised if Rob and
Co. aren't at least considering what comes after Plan9. Something will.

I was never suggesting such a solution.

I should have perhaps begun with something along the lines of ...

I consider that changing bio to meet a specific need and adding flags to
enable the new functionality is not a very forward looking solution.

Have fun guys and ask Cinap what it was like to work and fool around in
Australia.

brucee

On 5 May 2017 at 23:25, Dave MacFarlane <driusan@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Plan 9 has not yet been re-implemented in Go.
> >
> > sl
> >
>
> I started trying to do that at one point, but never got my kernel much
> farther than booting just enough to run "Hello, world!" compiled with
> 6c on a FAT filesystem in ring 0 and then crashing the system before
> deciding I don't have the time to finish it or get it somewhere
> useable. If anyone who has the time is interested in picking it up,
> contact me off-list and I'll send you a link to my (horribly written
> and designed) code.
>
> I'm more of a userspace kinda guy anyways..
>
> - Dave
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1830 bytes --]

Re: Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Julius Schmidt]

On Sat, 6 May 2017, Bruce Ellis wrote:

> Looks like an interesting project and I wouldn't be surprised if Rob and Co. aren't at least considering what comes after Plan9. Something will.
> I was never suggesting such a solution.
> 
> I should have perhaps begun with something along the lines of ...
> 
> I consider that changing bio to meet a specific need and adding flags to enable the new functionality is not a very forward looking solution.

Translation: Don't touch the artwork. Wait for rob to create next artwork 
instead. Preferably in Golang.

Flags to fix buffering are an ugly hack but the only better solution I can 
think of asynchronous buffering, which is impossible to implement in Plan 
9, at least transparently.

You also misunderstood the purpose of the bio fix. It's not just for 
buffering, it's an attempt to make bio more generally applicable.

> Have fun guys and ask Cinap what it was like to work and fool around in Australia.

If it was anything like this thread, I pity him already.

> 
> brucee
> 
> On 5 May 2017 at 23:25, Dave MacFarlane <driusan@gmail.com> wrote:
>       On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>       >
>       > Plan 9 has not yet been re-implemented in Go.
>       >
>       > sl
>       >
>
>       I started trying to do that at one point, but never got my kernel much
>       farther than booting just enough to run "Hello, world!" compiled with
>       6c on a FAT filesystem in ring 0 and then crashing the system before
>       deciding I don't have the time to finish it or get it somewhere
>       useable. If anyone who has the time is interested in picking it up,
>       contact me off-list and I'll send you a link to my (horribly written
>       and designed) code.
>
>       I'm more of a userspace kinda guy anyways..
>
>       - Dave
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Giacomo Tesio]

You might find https://lsub.org/ls/clive.html interesting.


Giacomo

2017-05-05 15:25 GMT+02:00 Dave MacFarlane <driusan@gmail.com>:
> On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>>
>> Plan 9 has not yet been re-implemented in Go.
>>
>> sl
>>
>
> I started trying to do that at one point, but never got my kernel much
> farther than booting just enough to run "Hello, world!" compiled with
> 6c on a FAT filesystem in ring 0 and then crashing the system before
> deciding I don't have the time to finish it or get it somewhere
> useable. If anyone who has the time is interested in picking it up,
> contact me off-list and I'll send you a link to my (horribly written
> and designed) code.
>
> I'm more of a userspace kinda guy anyways..
>
> - Dave

Re: Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Bruce Ellis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1098 bytes --]

Bug/typo in Clive example.

The line:

x := c3

assigns the channel c3 to x and is not a select statement.

It should be:

x := <-c3

Looks like an interesting project from those whacky lads.

brucee

On 6 May 2017 at 05:43, Giacomo Tesio <giacomo@tesio.it> wrote:

> You might find https://lsub.org/ls/clive.html interesting.
>
>
> Giacomo
>
> 2017-05-05 15:25 GMT+02:00 Dave MacFarlane <driusan@gmail.com>:
> > On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Plan 9 has not yet been re-implemented in Go.
> >>
> >> sl
> >>
> >
> > I started trying to do that at one point, but never got my kernel much
> > farther than booting just enough to run "Hello, world!" compiled with
> > 6c on a FAT filesystem in ring 0 and then crashing the system before
> > deciding I don't have the time to finish it or get it somewhere
> > useable. If anyone who has the time is interested in picking it up,
> > contact me off-list and I'll send you a link to my (horribly written
> > and designed) code.
> >
> > I'm more of a userspace kinda guy anyways..
> >
> > - Dave
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1998 bytes --]

Re: Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Bruce Ellis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2108 bytes --]

Now you are just putting words in my (and Cinaps's) mouths.

Please read:

https://golang.org/pkg/io/

brucee

On 6 May 2017 at 03:59, Julius Schmidt <aiju@phicode.de> wrote:

>
>
> On Sat, 6 May 2017, Bruce Ellis wrote:
>
> Looks like an interesting project and I wouldn't be surprised if Rob and
>> Co. aren't at least considering what comes after Plan9. Something will.
>> I was never suggesting such a solution.
>>
>> I should have perhaps begun with something along the lines of ...
>>
>> I consider that changing bio to meet a specific need and adding flags to
>> enable the new functionality is not a very forward looking solution.
>>
>
> Translation: Don't touch the artwork. Wait for rob to create next artwork
> instead. Preferably in Golang.
>
> Flags to fix buffering are an ugly hack but the only better solution I can
> think of asynchronous buffering, which is impossible to implement in Plan
> 9, at least transparently.
>
> You also misunderstood the purpose of the bio fix. It's not just for
> buffering, it's an attempt to make bio more generally applicable.
>
> Have fun guys and ask Cinap what it was like to work and fool around in
>> Australia.
>>
>
> If it was anything like this thread, I pity him already.
>
>
>
>> brucee
>>
>> On 5 May 2017 at 23:25, Dave MacFarlane <driusan@gmail.com> wrote:
>>       On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Stanley Lieber <
>> sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>>       >
>>       > Plan 9 has not yet been re-implemented in Go.
>>       >
>>       > sl
>>       >
>>
>>       I started trying to do that at one point, but never got my kernel
>> much
>>       farther than booting just enough to run "Hello, world!" compiled
>> with
>>       6c on a FAT filesystem in ring 0 and then crashing the system before
>>       deciding I don't have the time to finish it or get it somewhere
>>       useable. If anyone who has the time is interested in picking it up,
>>       contact me off-list and I'll send you a link to my (horribly written
>>       and designed) code.
>>
>>       I'm more of a userspace kinda guy anyways..
>>
>>       - Dave
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3288 bytes --]

Re: Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Kurt H Maier]

Bruce Ellis wrote:
> There are many benefits in replacing plan9 programs with a Go
> equivalent, e.g. the widespread deployment of algorithms that 
> use parallelism.

...

> Please read:
>
> https://golang.org/pkg/io/

...

"Because these interfaces and primitives wrap lower-level operations
with various implementations, unless otherwise informed clients should
not assume they are safe for parallel execution."

> What a faster cleaner world it would be.

sweet thanks

khm

Re: Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Bruce Ellis]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 734 bytes --]

To use ReadWriters in parallel use a Mutex. You'll find all bases are
covered.

https://golang.org/pkg/sync/

thanks. i hope this is enlightening.

brucee

On 6 May 2017 at 11:10, Kurt H Maier <khm@sciops.net> wrote:

> Bruce Ellis wrote:
> > There are many benefits in replacing plan9 programs with a Go
> > equivalent, e.g. the widespread deployment of algorithms that
> > use parallelism.
>
> ...
>
> > Please read:
> >
> > https://golang.org/pkg/io/
>
> ...
>
> "Because these interfaces and primitives wrap lower-level operations
> with various implementations, unless otherwise informed clients should
> not assume they are safe for parallel execution."
>
> > What a faster cleaner world it would be.
>
> sweet thanks
>
> khm
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1379 bytes --]

Re: Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Kurt H Maier]

On Sat, May 06, 2017 at 11:25:01AM +1000, Bruce Ellis wrote:
> To use ReadWriters in parallel use a Mutex. You'll find all bases are
> covered.

I think it might be simpler for everyone if I continue not using Go,
since I already know how to do these things in languages I already have
available.

I'll revisit this decision next time I need to write web software.

khm

Re: Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Julius Schmidt]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 2730 bytes --]



On Sat, 6 May 2017, Bruce Ellis wrote:

> Now you are just putting words in my (and Cinaps's) mouths.

I am just trying to guess what your cryptic messages are supposed to
mean.

If this whole thing is just an attempt at trolling, kudos to you, you
have me thoroughly pissed off.

I'm well familiar with Golang io, thank you very much.

Please just let us build 9front in peace.
Don't forget your Golang hat on the way out.

> 
> brucee
> 
> On 6 May 2017 at 03:59, Julius Schmidt <aiju@phicode.de> wrote:
> 
>
>       On Sat, 6 May 2017, Bruce Ellis wrote:
>
>             Looks like an interesting project and I wouldn't be surprised if Rob and Co. aren't at least considering what comes after Plan9. Something will.
>             I was never suggesting such a solution.
>
>             I should have perhaps begun with something along the lines of ...
>
>             I consider that changing bio to meet a specific need and adding flags to enable the new functionality is not a very forward looking solution.
> 
>
>       Translation: Don't touch the artwork. Wait for rob to create next artwork instead. Preferably in Golang.
>
>       Flags to fix buffering are an ugly hack but the only better solution I can think of asynchronous buffering, which is impossible to implement in Plan 9, at least transparently.
>
>       You also misunderstood the purpose of the bio fix. It's not just for buffering, it's an attempt to make bio more generally applicable.
>
>             Have fun guys and ask Cinap what it was like to work and fool around in Australia.
> 
>
>       If it was anything like this thread, I pity him already.
> 
>
>             brucee
>
>             On 5 May 2017 at 23:25, Dave MacFarlane <driusan@gmail.com> wrote:
>                   On Fri, May 5, 2017 at 6:21 AM, Stanley Lieber <sl@stanleylieber.com> wrote:
>                   >
>                   > Plan 9 has not yet been re-implemented in Go.
>                   >
>                   > sl
>                   >
>
>                   I started trying to do that at one point, but never got my kernel much
>                   farther than booting just enough to run "Hello, world!" compiled with
>                   6c on a FAT filesystem in ring 0 and then crashing the system before
>                   deciding I don't have the time to finish it or get it somewhere
>                   useable. If anyone who has the time is interested in picking it up,
>                   contact me off-list and I'll send you a link to my (horribly written
>                   and designed) code.
>
>                   I'm more of a userspace kinda guy anyways..
>
>                   - Dave
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [9fans] Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Giacomo Tesio]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 595 bytes --]

Il 06/Mag/2017 10:22, "Francisco J Ballesteros" <nemo@lsub.org> ha scritto:

considering as the HW all the machines I use, including their OS as the new
“HW”.


I'm afraid it's what they are trying to achieve with webassebly.

And in a way Inferno was doing the same, wasn't it.

I agree that in a network, several different os should be able to work
together seemlessy.

But despite my efforts in Jehanne I don't think the key to achieve this is
a os, nor a language. IMHO the key is a better general purpose protocol, as
simple as 9p but able to replace http.


Giacomo

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1161 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[hiro]

is this fight here about whether go's I/O interfaces being more
powerful than our bio?
or is it about C being completely unfit to provide anything as elegant
as go's I/O interfaces, because C has no interfaces (as already asked
by my earlier mail)?

Re: [9fans] Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[Stanley Lieber]

> including their OS as the new “HW”.

I really want to boot the OS on hardware.

sl

Re: [9fans] Reimplementing Plan 9 in Go (Was: Re: [9front] bio io functions)

[hiro]

also, when can i get jitted go on inferno?