On Fri Jun 9 07:41:19 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Thursday 08 June 2006 21:00, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Thu Jun 8 12:23:51 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > C has something called a Standard Library, it provides lots of useful > > > things when programming in C. > > > > > > Imagine how outlandish it would sound if you said that you "don't see > > > any advantage in having C99 stuff on Plan 9"? > > > > this doesn't make any sense to me. > > > > Whoops, understandable! - I typed "C99", when I meant "libc". > > > > while kenc supports most c99, some c99 > > bits were excluded on purpose. can you name a specific c99 bit and explain > > why it's inclusion in plan9 would make plan 9 better? > > > > Again, my mistake - I accidently crossed-wires by mentioning c99; when the > point I was trying make was to draw the parralel/similarity between C and > libc, > and Obj-C and GNUstep ( or FoundationKit, or whatever ).
regardless, my question remains the same. can you name a specific c99 libc bit that is missing and explain why it could make plan 9 better? > I'd just like to use this space to thank everyone's patience, and to > apologize if > I managed to inadvertently ruffle-feathers or cause annoyance - I hope it can > be > seen that I'm being sincere, and that I do appreciate the opportunity to risk > bouncing some semi half-baked ideas off the experts and professionals here > on this list in a friendly manner; as I've mentioned before, quite honestly: > I'm > merely a hobbyist and OS enthusiast. i don't think anybodys feathers are ruffled. i'm not yet convinced that objective c would be a bad idea, but neither have you built any case for it. what specific objective c properties would be beneficial? why don't you try using the system a bit. write some code. maybe read the aleph papers. i'd be interested in what you thought objective c could offer then. - erik
