Breaking from a thought habit can be hard. It's just our habit to think that we are limited to a single C compiler on our system. Why not have two compilers, gcc for linux, and ?[acl] for other stuff? On Plan 9 we have c89 to compile foreign code. I would rather compile applications on Linux using kenc any day. P9p is doing something different, so it's using the right compiler for its job.
I have two machines on my desk, a plan 9 terminal and a Mac. It took a little effort to break the thought habit that I have only one machine. Same is true about compilers. We can, and do, have more than one. > i must say i don't see the point though. > in many ways, ?[acl] are attractive as a whole. (the > way it is done and the distribution of the work is part > of the point, although it's worth noting that the > arrangement isn't novel to it.) going back to .s production seems a > retrograde step to me. indeed, some thought so even > in the 1970s! it's fairly typical of gnu to have > stuck with it.
