On Fri Jun 9 17:45:21 CDT 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Except /sys/src/9/pc/pci.c that says it badly needs to be rewritten. > Maybe a slightly less Kool-Aid drinking way to approach this would be > to say "code that needs help is better marked, and there's less of > that?"
i've never worked on or looked at the source code of any significant program or kernel that didn't have some functions that either claim to need or actually need "massive rewrites". > Then again. I've not personally audited the whole system, and it's > not clear that I have the qualifications to say that Plan 9's source > is better than other systems. going only on the theory that deleted code is debugged code, plan 9 is likely has fewer problems and unintended consequences than unix clones. a fundamental mistake of linux-think is that anytime a function is known to have limitations, fixing those limitations is a priori considered better than not. many times, i think this boils down to local optimizations that result in global pessimization. > > There's a lot of "belief" here that I think is "fundamentally" > dangerous... as with anything. belief is important. where would the catholic church be without it? ☺ if we do not believe that plan 9 is good, we'll all use something else. - erik
