> See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genera_(operating_system)
> Look under the Features section.
hey, that's cool. thanks for the reference.
- erik
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 02:05:19PM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:46:25 EDT Matthew Veety wrote:
> > Oh lord this is degenerating to lisp machines.
>
> And the problem with that is?
>
you are a master troll this is awesome
On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:46:25 EDT Matthew Veety wrote:
> Oh lord this is degenerating to lisp machines.
And the problem with that is?
Oh lord this is degenerating to lisp machines.
On May 17, 2013, at 16:42, Bakul Shah wrote:
> On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:31:43 EDT Kurt H Maier self
> referentially wrote:
>>
>> This is a fantastic troll.
>
> In response to
>> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:45:06AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
>>>
>>
On Fri, 17 May 2013 16:31:43 EDT Kurt H Maier self
referentially wrote:
>
> This is a fantastic troll.
In response to
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:45:06AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> >
> > I don't see what's the big deal about doing GC In an OS kernel.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gener
On Fri May 17 16:32:47 EDT 2013, kh...@intma.in wrote:
> On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:45:06AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
> >
> > I don't see what's the big deal about doing GC In an OS kernel.
>
> This is a fantastic troll.
i don't see the troll here. there is nothing magic about user space.
-
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:45:06AM -0700, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> I don't see what's the big deal about doing GC In an OS kernel.
>
This is a fantastic troll.
khm
On 17 May 2013 18:53, lamg wrote:
> What about the
> preprocessor? Can we get rid of that?
>
The Plan 9 C compiler does the preprocessor actions during lexical
analysis. It isn't a separate pass.
> On the other other hand, to really dethrone C, there needs to be a Go
> compiler in Go and an OS in Go!
I also want my microwave and wristband to run GO code first.
On May 17, 2013, at 9:07 AM, Nemo wrote:
> If you remove the features that make go interesting you'd get C without
> punctuation symbols.
Agreed.
I don't see what's the big deal about doing GC In an OS kernel. And the
features that make Go interesting can be useful at the kernel level too.
On
What about lack of makefiles and fast compilation times?, I don´t want
to "remove" that. The point is making a more practical C, not a
Go--. Go´s grammar is designed for being easy to parse (and is
different), so it wouldn´t be C without punctuation symbols; and Go´s
package system makes the comp
Go's is a great language that makes it easy to write applications of all
sizes well, but its greatest benefit to Plan 9 is the plethora of packages
that make it possible to deal with the numerous Web standards.
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Matthew Veety wrote:
> On May 17, 2013, at 11:51,
> In its own niche is the important point here. Just because writing a
> kernel or system utilities can be done in Go doesn't mean it should
> be. Go isn't even totally stable or feature complete on Plan 9 at
> this point. You get the same shit in C on Plan 9 as you do Go plus
> it's more stable
On May 17, 2013, at 11:51, lamg wrote:
> I think it will be nice for Plan9 having such language-compiler, Go
> has proved to be an improvement over C in its own niche.
>
In its own niche is the important point here. Just because writing a kernel or
system utilities can be done in Go doesn't me
If you remove the features that make go interesting you'd get C without
punctuation symbols.
Can Go be used for replacing C in Plan9? Could be a kernel be written
in Go? If it is not possible, what about making a C-like Go? Where
C-like Go means having similar syntax, but not channels, garbage
collection, and other fancy 21st century runtime features; but with no
need for makefiles and fa
16 matches
Mail list logo
