On Fri Jun 9 10:11:50 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Friday 09 June 2006 06:15, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > On Fri Jun 9 07:41:19 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > 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 am certainly not qualified to raise any contention with what portions of > the C99 > standard have been purposefully left out of Plan 9's libc. > > Plan 9 has been around for a long time now, if something obvious or necessary > were missing from its libc, I can only imagine that it would have already > been > remedied.
necessity is subjective so i wouldn't make that assumption. > Am I correct in interpreting your question as an assertion that, if Plan 9's > libc is > functionaly complete, then it logically follows that an Objective-C runtime > library > such as GNUstep would not bring anything useful to the table? no, not at all. i think you address what i'm trying to say below: > > I won't be able to convince, with certainty, even _myself_ that obj-c would be > anything more than at best redundant on Plan 9 until I have actually > evaluated > obj-c _on_ Plan 9. That's the whole point of this potentialy inane little > experiment; > I'm dabbling. bingo. > > what specific objective c properties would be beneficial? > > > > Richer exception handling, richer string handling, garbage collection, > categories, > protocols, introspection, dynamic dispatch, dynamic typing, heck, dynamic > everything, unit testing, steptalk. take a look at inferno/limbo. - erik
