@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 see the 9GoNix OS ;-) brought into life]
Cheers, peter. On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 11:24 AM, <lu...@proxima.alt.za> wrote: > > 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. Having investigated Hogan's > port of GCC (3.0) to Plan 9, my impression is that GCC would never > really fit in with the Plan 9 paradigm, it is way too expensive and > unrewarding to bend it into shape, C++ notwithstanding. > > Hence Go, together with the upgraded (if you want to call them that) > Plan 9 development tools. I'm still of the opinion that a convergence > of the Plan 9 tools and the Go development can become the Esperanto of > information technology, given that ease of portability to foreign > architectures is a founding principle. Only time will tell, sadly I > don't see any organisation or authoritative person recommending 8c et > al for development, where I expect that would be a step forward. > > The obsession with optimisation, in part, is to be blamed, too. But > not alone. > > Just as a side note, I was hoping to port Plan 9 to the Olimex > LinuXino, one of many project that may or may not see the light of > day. It comes with some or other variety of Linux, but has too little > memory (64MiB) to be more than an embedded prototyping system and the > default Linux release comes without the GCC development system. It > struck me that the Go system could be cross-compiled for Linux/Arm on > my Plan 9 network and used on the LinuXino. In fact, I have > implemented some small applications in this way although I have had no > occasion to do more than that. If I could figure a way to compile the > Go distribution with its own tools, I may be able to prove that Go is > a viable release development system without GCC backing it, something > we have shown to a smaller audience with the Plan9/386 distribution. > > ++L > > >
