On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 4:28 PM, <smi...@zenzebra.mv.com> wrote: > ron minnich <rminn...@gmail.com> writes: >
>> There's a reason it does not use that stuff, and it may not be what >> you think. > > OK, come on already, quit teasing me! :) What's the secret reason? I don't think it's a secret. There is a not very small group of people who find all the things you mentioned unsatisfying in both an esthetic and practical sense, especially when implemented in the manner of C++, particularly the STL. Hence, I am not surprised that nobody in this community has rushed to add them. It's not like people here don't know about them. Rather, it is that those who might have brought those ideas in have likely considered and rejected them. > >> That said, why are you thinking in terms of writing in C anyway? > > Because Plan 9 only has a C compiler? I think you should set your sights higher than the macro approach you propose. At least in my opinion it's a really ugly idea. You could make a lasting contribution by bringing a good modern language to Plan 9. I'll say it again, I don't think a cpp-based approach will be well received in this community, and for good reason. A Go port? Well, that's another story. Or even native Limbo, that one is frequently requested. good luck. ron
