True. And while it’s an interesting topic - it’s well known that the vocabulary and thought are intertwined.
This is why people bother to find new ways to express themselves. That includes languages AND abstractions. If you love Plan 9 - I hate to break it to you - but you’re already into “alternative language”. And WELCOME!🙏 Sent from my iPhone > On Jun 22, 2025, at 3:37 PM, o...@eigenstate.org wrote: > > 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 <g...@dbsystems.com>: >> 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 <rminn...@gmail.com> 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 < g...@dbsystems.com >> [mailto:g...@dbsystems.com]> 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 < blstu...@bellsouth.net >> [mailto:blstu...@bellsouth.net]> 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/T325476182ce3862a-Ma3a7aff9278a8d387f32d8a1 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
