There are, regularly, mention for "porting" or having gcc(1) on Plan9 in
order to be able to port more user level applications (because user
level applications not only depend on a bunch of things---generally
ignoring standards---but on compiler idiosynchrasies too...).
With gcc 4.8.0, the impleme
> With gcc 4.8.0, the implementation of gcc is now in C++... And to
> compile a compiler, one needs a C++ compiler...
This is not an insurmountable obstacle. In fact it's the normal
situation when retargeting any self-compiled compiler for a new
instruction set.
So, you perceive it, too unfortunately, then there will be no more
computers, even electric power nomads don't need it, and won't care :-(
++pac
> IMHO, with the advent of a crisis compared to which 1929 will be a
> minor storm, there will be a general disgust and lack of trust and a
> r
I wonder if the new gcc will be written in cfront compatible
c++ - that would work... ☺
-Steve
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:53:29AM +, Richard Miller wrote:
> > With gcc 4.8.0, the implementation of gcc is now in C++... And to
> > compile a compiler, one needs a C++ compiler...
>
> This is not an insurmountable obstacle. In fact it's the normal
> situation when retargeting any self-compi
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Peter A. Cejchan wrote:
> So, you perceive it, too unfortunately, then there will be no more
> computers, even electric power nomads don't need it, and won't care :-(
> ++pac
>
>
>
> > IMHO, with the advent of a crisis compared to which 1929 will
Yep...
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:10 AM, wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:54:14AM +0100, Peter A. Cejchan wrote:
> > So, you perceive it, too unfortunately, then there will be no more
> > computers, even electric power nomads don't need it, and won't care
> :-(
> > ++pac
> >
> >
> >
>
> Except that C is a great language because it is both high
> level enough and low level (near machine) that a compiler written in C
> without optimizations and pure integer is "easy" (less expensive) to
> write from scratch. Here, the dependencies increase.
I wouldn't cry too many tears over GCC.
@Lucio: I still hope that some clone of plan9/nix/nxm will merge with Go
... just my dream, and I am just an embryo of a programmer
(as multiply stated here and elsewhere) so take it easy however, I'm
moving all my old stuff (and creating new one) to Go
[unfortunately, I am afraid I will never
It has long been the case that gcc can only be compiled with gcc. Switching its
impl. lang. to c++ doesn't make the porting problem any worse.
The other "industrial strength" open source c/c++ compiler clang/llvm is also
written in c++.
They can both be built on windows so it would certainly be
> [unfortunately, I am afraid I will never see the 9GoNix OS ;-) brought into
> life]
I think Plan 9 spoils us, the OS is just a tool, not a faith. Just as
Go is not a faith, just a logical evolution of Alef, through Limbo, to
the platforms and conditions that prevail today. What matters is to
b
> It has long been the case that gcc can only be compiled with gcc. Switching
> its impl. lang. to c++ doesn't make the porting problem any worse.
>
> The other "industrial strength" open source c/c++ compiler clang/llvm is also
> written in c++.
>
> They can both be built on windows so it woul
go runs already on 9.
Binaries are one order of magnitude larger and the go tool & part of the
runtime code are, well….
but it's already there.
On Mar 23, 2013, at 12:40 PM, "Peter A. Cejchan" wrote:
> I still hope that some clone of plan9/nix/nxm will merge with Go
> Binaries are one order of magnitude larger and the go tool & part of the
> runtime code are, well….
sorry to be dense. larger than what?
- erik
Than plan 9's C ones.
On Mar 23, 2013, at 5:09 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> Binaries are one order of magnitude larger and the go tool & part of the
>> runtime code are, well….
>
> sorry to be dense. larger than what?
>
> - erik
>> Binaries are one order of magnitude larger and the go tool & part of the
>> runtime code are, well….
>
> sorry to be dense. larger than what?
C
On Sat Mar 23 12:20:57 EDT 2013, n...@lsub.org wrote:
> Than plan 9's C ones.
>
> On Mar 23, 2013, at 5:09 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> >> Binaries are one order of magnitude larger and the go tool & part of the
> >> runtime code are, well….
> >
> > sorry to be dense. larger than what?
ah.
>> Binaries are one order of magnitude larger and the go tool & part of the
>> runtime code are, well….
>
> sorry to be dense. larger than what?
>
My guess "larger than they need to be" because the Go linker does not
drop unused library modules. Nemo may mean something else, of course.
++L
>
> ah. i thought you were saying that it was an order of magnitude
> larger than the unix version of go.
>
> by the way, does this scale with lines of go code, or is it just
> that the trivial go executable is megs?
A simple hello world is megs.
G.
On 3/23/13, Peter A. Cejchan wrote:
> @Lucio: I still hope that some clone of plan9/nix/nxm will merge with Go
> ... just my dream, and I am just an embryo of a programmer
> (as multiply stated here and elsewhere) so take it easy however, I'm
> moving all my old stuff (and creating new one) t
Much of which is symbols. Plus, a a simple computer has gigs of memory.
Yes, it's remarkable how much bigger programs are now than they were
20 years ago, but 20 years ago the same things were being said. I
understand your objection - I really do - but it's time to face the
future. The smart phone
On Sat Mar 23 13:16:39 EDT 2013, robp...@gmail.com wrote:
> Much of which is symbols. Plus, a a simple computer has gigs of memory.
so, assuming demand loading, this is more of a
disk space issue rather than a memory issue?
- erik
> What matters is to be able to produce code
What matters is to get rid of code.
Although, in general, I agree. I think that having the resources doesn't mean
we have to consume them (although we might if that pays off, of course).
For example, looking at what go install does wrt what a few mkfiles would
do for the same go source is illustrative of what I'm trying to say.
On
> it's time to face the future.
will go be able to run in the browser with activex? is it compatible
with node.js?
I feel like the future is repeating itself. Don't know what you find
so worthy in this.
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:15:20AM -0700, Rob Pike wrote:
>
> Yes, it's remarkable how much bigger programs are now than they were
> 20 years ago, but 20 years ago the same things were being said.
Can we conclude that the added power is lost for the result obtained
from the applications, since i
On 3/23/13, Francisco J Ballesteros wrote:
> Although, in general, I agree.
Are you surprised that you do?
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
> Much of which is symbols. Plus, a a simple computer has gigs of memory.
>
> Yes, it's remarkable how much bigger programs are now than they were
> 20 years ago, but 20 years ago the same things were being said. I
> understand your objection - I re
I'll try to say it in a different way.
I asked Siri and (s)he said (s)he does not consume many resources.
Now, that's nice. I'm willing to give up the machine resources for that, or
for dialling by voice on my car.
*But*, I'm not sure that to print "Hi there" I need a few megs, nor am I sure
that
> I remember when I started to work in a surveyor office. There was
> microstation, back in early 90s, that ran on a DOS extender with a
> perfect graphical performance (you were able to work flawlessly,
> zooming, panning or whatever). You were never waiting for the
> application or the display;
this is not a new discussion, it started in november 2009. the fact
that it's just coming to 9fans is a sign of how far behind the times
we are :(
the go runtime is ~380k. that one you must carry always even in an
empty program (see below). what you're complaining about is the
side-effect of impor
It's pointless to complain about the size of "hello world". It's not a
real program. In Go's case it's larger than a C binary because the
libraries (and the presence of a runtime) are capable of much more
under the covers, but by the time you write a real program in Go
you'll find the ratio of Go b
Thanks, Andrey, although what you say about Unicode and fmt isn't
true. Believe it or not, we care about sizes and arranged that fmt
doesn't need to import the whole Unicode tables, only the small subset
it needs.
-rob
I'll happily pay the price of bigger binaries for things such as the %v format.
I don't write hello, world that often, or even care about its size when I do.
One demo we used to do for Unix was show we could write an executable
program that was 2 bytes. It was cute. Did it matter, in the end? Not
> incremental improvement often fails.
why does it fail? I don't see why this has to be a rule.
a frequently annoying counterexample is when they yet again reinvent
the wheel, include a new "compatible" implementation of all the old
features and some new features, all based on some better design
so, assuming demand loading, this is more of a
disk space issue rather than a memory issue?
It's only an issue on mailing lists and discussion groups.
-rob
On Sat Mar 23 15:30:40 EDT 2013, robp...@gmail.com wrote:
>so, assuming demand loading, this is more of a
>disk space issue rather than a memory issue?
>
> It's only an issue on mailing lists and discussion groups.
i was hoping to know if the symbols are used for reflection.
- erik
I have a few programs written, including fs sync tools and a few other things.
I guess the largest one might be 10k lines.
The language is nice, although binaries are still large. I mentioned hello
world
because that was the trivial example. I saw the same effect with other real
world programs.
For example, looking at what go install does wrt what a few mkfiles would
do for the same go source is illustrative of what I'm trying to say.
I've never seen a mkfile that builds a transitive dependency graph
given only the source code, downloads the relative dependencies from
the network
Yes, they are necessary for reflection. Fmt uses reflection - and uses
it well, as rminnich has attested.
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:31 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> On Sat Mar 23 15:30:40 EDT 2013, robp...@gmail.com wrote:
>>so, assuming demand loading, this is more of a
>>disk space issue
If go install is slow on Plan 9, it's because Plan 9's file system is
slow (which it is and always has been), and because go install does
transitive dependencies correctly, which mk does not.
-rob
On Mar 23, 2013, at 8:33 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
> Why use mk when the source code has all the
> information you need to build the program
speed.
You have a fast and nice compiler.
I only copy a std mkfile to each dir with go source. I dont write them.
I just did a go install, after a clean, of the biggest binary I'm
working on, using my pokey old mac laptop. It took 0.9 seconds, most
of which was spent in 6l and not the go tool. It could be faster, but
it's plenty fast enough.
The public won't use mk or make. If you want to succeed in the world
might be, but I was also thinking on macos x, not just 9.
On Mar 23, 2013, at 8:37 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
> If go install is slow on Plan 9, it's because Plan 9's file system is
> slow (which it is and always has been), and because go install does
> transitive dependencies correctly, which mk does
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 8:23 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> I'll happily pay the price of bigger binaries for things such as the %v
> format.
>
> I don't write hello, world that often, or even care about its size when I do.
Hello world was just an example, please don't make a straw man out of it.
If y
with mkfiles you can never have something like http://godoc.org. in
fact, it would be very difficult to make something like godoc for any
other language without major support from the authors or volunteers.
what godoc.org does is amazing -- when you type in a query for
something that looks like a
I used noweb, and web before that, long before go was conceived.
In fact, I was a huge fan of that. Knuth literate programming was fun.
it was tiny compared with godoc tool. Although the go tool is tiny compared
with eclipse or even the old code warrior.
I like the language, and worked to get it r
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 09:56:19AM +, Steve Simon wrote:
> I wonder if the new gcc will be written in cfront compatible
> c++ - that would work... ?
I guess the answer is: no, since the compiler has to be C++ 2003
compatible. But I guess too that your mention of cfront was a joke...
--
Yup
Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 23, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Rob Pike wrote:
> It's pointless to complain about the size of "hello world". It's not a
> real program. In Go's case it's larger than a C binary because the
> libraries (and the presence of a runtime) are capable of much more
> under the co
> If you want real programs which are bigger that I (we) actually use that will
> be (much) bigger in go:
>
> ls, cp rm mv cat acid, I can go on.
>
> Small programs are useful and important.
here's a representative set. the programs are identical in behaviour
and arguments to the Plan 9 set. the s
I recall one guy at the labs(!) who would ruthlessly avoid printf because
it dragged in too much stuff. I think he ran out of people to argue with 30
years ago.
On 24 Mar 2013 10:47, "andrey mirtchovski" wrote:
> > If you want real programs which are bigger that I (we) actually use that
> will
>
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 10:15:20AM -0700, Rob Pike wrote:
> Much of which is symbols. Plus, a a simple computer has gigs of memory.
>
> Yes, it's remarkable how much bigger programs are now than they were
> 20 years ago, but 20 years ago the same things were being said. I
> understand your objecti
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:29:36PM -0700, Rob Pike wrote:
>so, assuming demand loading, this is more of a
>disk space issue rather than a memory issue?
>
> It's only an issue on mailing lists and discussion groups.
>
> -rob
>
Also in university campuses and web programming shops, which
On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 12:43:24PM -0700, Rob Pike wrote:
>
> The public won't use mk or make. If you want to succeed in the world,
Oh good, is this where we find out we've all been using the wrong
version of 'success'? Not everone has your goals. Still.
>
> I regret responding to this thread
I regret that you regret responding, and hope that you will relent.
It's always refreshing to hear from curmudgeons with quite a few more
clues than oneself. I'm not sure if I'm the public exactly, but I do
find mk and make too labour-intensive for my tastes. I'm now an IDE
kind of guy, having st
56 matches
Mail list logo
