I have a lot of admiration for cinap, he's "deep".

But he is also the best qualified person to estimate whether
improvements in 9front are portable back to legacy and I'm sure that
is, sadly, not high on his agenda.

Conservatively, I'd like legacy to be the entry system to Plan 9 and
categorise mutually incompatible enhancements (there are a few I know
about, but can't think of any off-hand) to be well documented so
"forks" remain as close to each other as possible.

Of course, there is implicitly no incompatibility where bug fixes
occur or new developments are introduced, in my "perfect world".

Your comments, hiro, are very helpful and reassuring. My focus at
present is to continue my Go developments (not contributions,  I have
some long-term work I would not undertake in any other language - Go
is hardly perfect, but it is wonderfully productive: I'm no longer
surprised when modules work first-time after a successful
compilation), but I'll be glad to contribute to any efforts to
categorise Plan 9 updates since the demise is Bell-Labs into
compatibility classes. Taxonomy, rather than archeology, I guess. I
think it would be worthwhile, even at a hobby level.

I'll tick off your questions as I get an opportunity to test them,
report back here, or personally, as seems appropriate.

Thank you for taking the trouble to encourage me along.


Reply via email to