I don't think language wars are on topic here. Let's try to keep the discussion focused on Plan 9 and related technologies.
Quoth G. David Butler <[email protected]>: > Let me stand on the shoulders of giants: https://sqlite.org/whyc.html > [https://sqlite.org/whyc.html] > David > > On Jun 22, 2025, at 7:34 AM, ron minnich <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "...(C is faster and more portable than golang)..." > It's always best if we can keep these discussions factual or, at > least, if we make a claim, we can back it up. > For example, the u-root version of dd, written in Go, is faster and > more portable than many C and Rust versions. Measured: GNUBIN dd from > /dev/zero to /dev/null tops out at 20 GiB/S on my s76 laptop; the Go > version tops out at 50. The GNUbin dd has no hope of running on Plan > 9; the u-root version compiles with no changes. golang has better > speed and portability in this one example. > If you've got some factual basis for such a broad claim, I'm happy to > hear it. > > On Sat, Jun 21, 2025 at 11:00 AM G. David Butler < [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > > Brian, > > I am always looking for kindred spirits and your message strikes a > cord. So I looked you up and read a bit about your ENIAC simulator. > Not because I’m particularly interested in the ENIAC but your golang > simulation of it. > Where does Plan9 fit? I was a very early adopter of Plan 9. I liked > some of its concepts and disliked others. (Long story that can be > found in this list’s history.) The one that really took root was the > channel theme of the language ALEF ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alef_(programming_language) > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alef_(programming_language)]) that Pike > used to create rio and acme. Because of issues maintaining the > language, the Plan 9 team created a C coroutine library to support the > needed functionality to re-write the tools in C ( > https://swtch.com/libtask/ [https://swtch.com/libtask/]). ALEF got > channels from Pike’s Newsqueak that was invoked with the command > “squint”. The significance is a paper written by M. Douglas McIlroy > “Squinting at Power Series” ( https://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/squint.pdf > [https://swtch.com/~rsc/thread/squint.pdf]) and my implementation I > used to test my C / pthread channel library. One thing difficult with > testing a highly concurrent / parallel runtime environment is its > non-deterministic execution. What is great about his paper is after > all the huge number of threads and channels coming and going, the > correct coefficients of the TAN function prove it works. > Back to your ENIAC simulator and its extensive use of threads and > channels. It looks like another good test of my channel > implementation. Also, like the Newsqueak implementation of channels, > the golang implementation of channels has shortcomings that I > improved. > Why am I reaching out? I don’t want to know about the ENIAC or learn > golang well enough to translate your simulator. But if you are > interested in an even more portable version of your simulator (C is > faster and more portable than golang) I propose a collaboration to do > it. What do I get out of it? Another through test of my channels. And > why do I want to do that? Read below. > David > > On Jun 6, 2025, at 6:56 PM, Brian L. Stuart < [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]]> wrote: > > So I've been seeing big-picture/philosophical discussions arise on > 9fans > for about 25 years. Usually I just sit back with my bowl of popcorn > and > watch. Every once in a while I'll jump in and present a painfully long > dissertation, and that's today. For those new to my perspective, I've > been at this stuff for nearly 50 years (I wrote my first code in'76 > or'77), and as time has gone by, I find myself becoming more and more > the G.H. Hardy of computing. For those who don't know that reference, > look up his essay"A Mathematician's Apology." The semi-serious tl;dr > is"If anyone ever finds a practical application of my work, I'll > consider it a failure." > > My launching point today is the statement made in various ways by > several of the contributors that computers are tools. Of course, I'm > aware that's the case for some people, and we've all done applied > things to put food on the table. But if that were the whole point > of computing, I'd be bored out of my skull. In the same way that > a study of physics might result in a better widget for the unwashed > masses but that's not its purpose, so a study of computer science > might result in a similar better widget but that's not its purpose. > Physics is the study of phenomena surrounding elementary particles > and forces. Computer Science is the study of phenomena surrounding > the property of universality. It requires no other justification. > We made a really big mistake back in the'60s and'70s when we got > excited about computers and people asked why and what good are they. > We tried to come up with justifications when we would have been > better off just saying,"you wouldn't be interested; they're just > for us nerds." I continue to be amused that one of our justifications > was always keeping track of recipes in a kitchen. If you're not > familiar with it, check out the infamous"kitchen computer" from > an old Neiman Marcus catalog. > > You would be correct then to infer that I don't really put any > weight on how many users we bring into the community. This is > the reason why by 2005 to 2010, I had largely turned my back on > Linux. It seemed that too many decisions in that community were > about making things"easy" for those who had no UNIX experience > at the expense of those who did. It seems that much of the open > source world has come to measure success by user adoption and > number of commits to the source control preference of the decade. > Neither of those draw my attention. If there is any correlation > between quality and popularity, it is negative. That gets us to > the general topic of the so-called"user." The garbage promulgated > by the self-appointed UI experts is almost always directly opposed > to what I want. I have plans in the after-life to use an endless > can of lighter fluid to stoke the fires burning the morons who > put huge trackpads where the heels of my hands belong on a laptop. > What would happen to music if piano and guitar makers applied the > same stupidity to help prevent beginners from making mistakes. Maybe > there is a place for the record player, but if you damage my piano > to turn it into a record player, you're a force for evil, not good. > Along similar lines, the justifications that are made for most of > the UI commandments (including the precious mouse) are prefect > examples of measuring the wrong thing. Speed of interface is > irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether I use ed and use search > to find the bit I want to edit, or whether I use acme and let > the mouse scroll to where I want to edit. The difference is lost > in the noise because any programmer or writer worth a damn spends > far more time thinking and drawing diagrams on paper than in > typing and clicking. If you want to respond with"but most > people don't write software or papers" then see my rant on the > piano vs the record player. Because the computer is a finite > realization of the universal machine Turing identified, it exists > to be programmed. To not create with it is to use it not as > a piano but as a toaster. > > As many of you know, I already have my own private language to > minimize the spikes in blood pressure every time the C standards > committee meets. Although POSIX does still exist when I teach, > I no longer go anywhere near it when I'm programming. So it > shouldn't be surprising to learn that in the last several years, > my thoughts have moved away from"what can I contribute to the > Plan 9 world" to"what ideas from Plan 9 would I borrow for > a private system" or"should I just use the Plan 9 kernel and > build my own environment around it." Of course, I also have > to solve the problem of hardware. The x86 is a steaming pile > of garbage and one of my objectives is to become an x86-free > zone. I've also come to the conclusion that it is so horrific > that what sticks to it is only the similarly disgusting stuff > like ACPI, UEFI, etc. What scares me to death is that some > of that same garbage has started to cling to what could > otherwise be reasonable architectures. At least the Raspberry > Pi is mostly its own world, so most of my Plan 9 work these > days is centered there. But I am starting to think I might > have to create my own hardware to truly escape from the > breathtaking stupidity that has come to dominate the industry. > Yes, I've even thought about resurrecting a 68000 machine > I wire-wrapped nearly 40 years ago. > > Much of my aesthetic is described by the quote from > Saint-Exupery,"Perfection is achieved, not when there is > nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take > away." Now I'm not telling people they shouldn't add for > themselves if they want. But as I move toward disconnecting > from the parts of the computing world that give me heartburn > to stay in the parts that give me intellectual satisfaction > and fulfillment, I expect to be taking things out, rather > than adding them. Everyone can have their own reasons > for being part of the community and their own objectives > moving forward. But for me the reasons I'm here are largely > dominated by the minimalism of the design where I can feel > direct connections to the individuals who created it, the > stability of the code base, and the smallness of the community. > > A little while back I found myself trying to articulate what > I really saw as programming while I was walking. By the time > I got back to the office, I had a phrasing I liked, so I > typed it up in TeX with \magnification=3584 and put the > output on my wall. The other day I was catching up with > one of our alums who has recently finished her PhD at Penn > and she saw it, said she liked it, and took a picture of it. > It reads,"Programming is the process by which we take an > idea, a concept, existing in nothing but a pattern of firing > neurons and transform it through pure thought into the > definition of a machine, a definition that can be interpreted > and emulated by a universal machine to manipulate the physical > world. All else taints and compromises the purity and beauty > of programming." > > There's your semi-decadal tirade from the old guy to remind > everyone that computing is not really about the nonsense that > pervades the general culture. > > BLS > [https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription] > > 9fans [https://9fans.topicbox.com/latest] / 9fans / see discussions > [https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans] + participants > [https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/members] + delivery > [https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription] options > Permalink > [https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf84d656c78bbda91-Me575cba8b6ed9367d9c5cbb7] ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf84d656c78bbda91-Mee76249bb4b11cc3b6ba3de5 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
