On Wednesday 07 June 2006 15:49, Paul Lalonde wrote: > On 7-Jun-06, at 3:39 PM, Corey wrote: > > > > You also make it sound as though higher-level libraries and/or > > object-oriented > > programming on Plan 9 are a complete waste in all circumstances. > > Plan 9 is object-oriented. The objects have a file-like abstraction > and interactions with the objects are mediated by a network protocol > that abstracts all the network messiness away. >
I've more or less dimly grokked the not-immediately-obvious-but-very-elegant Plan9-as-object-oriented-via-9p concept; but Plan 9 is not a programming language. To which I'll probably get the response from someone: "OOP is pointless - you can do every thing OOP can do, using 9p and modular programming in C." Which is certainly a valid point, unless for whatever reasons, you are unable to write a whole framework or whatever from scratch, and would thus selfishly prefer to use an existing one. > C++ on Plan 9 is a whole other issue. It's bad enough that it has > invaded my work life, having it invade my hobby computing environment > would just make me sad. > I don't like C++ either; I'm merely asking about Objective-C, which I find enjoyable and mostly sound. > I can easily imagine a nice smalltalk implementation for Plan 9 that > plays well with the 9P servers. Yes, that would be cool. But when I mention: "I can easily imagine a nice <insert programming language> implementation for Plan 9 that plays well with the 9P servers", I somehow quickly make an annoyance of myself. <grin> It's weird. Cheers, Corey
