On 7/2/25 07:46, Dan Cross wrote: > On Tue, Jul 1, 2025 at 6:37 PM Jacob Moody <[email protected]> wrote: >> One of the reasons why Plan 9 is nice is that we do not have to copy >> everyone else's mistakes and assume >> their baggage for supporting X, Y, and Z environments. >> >> [snip] >> If people feel like we need something other than C, I'd prefer to see us >> write something for ourselves, not import another language >> off the shelf. If you want Node or Rust you know where to find it, I don't >> think we need them in Plan 9. What is the benefit of Plan 9 >> if all it does is run Unix software but (very likely) worse? > > I agree with much of what you said, particularly the last sentence, > but want to clarify a point and also sound a note of caution. > > I think what you meant, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that if > one wants something other than C, one should write an implementation > for oneself, instead of trying to import the (large) upstream version. > But I caution against trying to, say, design a new language just for > Plan 9. Language design and language _implementation_ are independent > things, even if they are cousins rather than complete strangers. Do it
I think you were a bit too charitable with my reading, I was implying designing our own language from scratch. You're correct in that it's a very large undertaking, but I'd like to think we have the chops for it. > for fun or as a research experiment? Sure; have at it. But as a > serious production endeavor specific to plan 9? Perhaps not. To me, 9front exists to have fun and as a research experiment. I want to keep the spirit of Plan 9 as a research operating system alive and well. I think the fact that what we have wound up with could be construed as "serious production" is a testament to just how many people have been drawn to the fruits of said research and experimentation. People come for the ideas, find and report bugs, and things get more stable. > > Also, the cautionary note is to not be too reactive against the rest > of the world (which is something I readily admit myself guilty of, > when it comes to Plan 9). I'm not saying that you specifically are > suggesting being so, just that it's something that does happen quite a > bit. Doing something just to be different, when a perfectly adequate > solution exists that would fit within the large system ethos, isn't > terribly useful, either. I agree with you, and as part of our design process we constantly ask ourselves about what the prior work is. I think the desire to not use something as-is comes more from a place of wanting to compound on to the existing work that exists, instead of replacing it wholesale for the sake of it. The work I did with chdev was shamelessly influenced by what openbsd did with pledge and unveil. That whole project started with me trying to implement more or less exactly the same interface, but we found that to make it work well we needed to think about things a bit differently and that drove a change in the interface. > > Different systems have different design philosophies and goals; plan > 9's is interesting, but it's just one of many interesting systems. > Absolutely, and I hope that whoever else comes by and wants to learn from our research and experimentation can do so, maybe taking their own step forward and trying their own thing. Thanks, Jacob Moody ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf84d656c78bbda91-M9de240969c6c2f555acbaefa Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
