> made for the implementation. An extreme example would be, say, if I were > writing a Windows application. I probably don't have much ability to write > it for another system (Unix, Plan 9, whatever) instead because I'd prefer > that.
that isn't quite what i was suggesting (it was fairly carefully worded): in such a case you probably wouldn't have made `a problem go away', but rather introduced a new one because your solution was quite possibly fine but for a different environment. as a small concrete example, some of our grid users run existing Windows binaries for which source is unavailable, so the application does need to run on Windows (or perhaps a close emulation of it), and trying to convert it (say) to Limbo isn't particularly helpful; on the other hand, that still doesn't stop us using Inferno to build the grid infrastructure well and pleasantly (and without using XML or web services anywhere, as it happens), within the Windows environment. i wasn't suggesting one had carte blanche, just that it's often possible to find more freedom than one might initially expect in providing the solution; i also pointed out that anything off-beat might need to work really well to keep them happy [on the golf course] (but then, if it doesn't, why use it?) one point i didn't make, but ought to have done, is that it can be a little trickier when one is in competition for work, but even there it can be done.
