On Sat Mar 31 19:35:39 EDT 2007, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > So, plan 9 wasnt made for, hmm, heavy computing tasks, like 2 milions of > calls of recursive functions > working with some complex data structure (not my data structure, hehe), or > something like that?
rather, when there was a conflict between squeezing every last cycle out of the machine or simplicity, the designers of plan 9 generally opted for simplicity. when there was a conflict between generality and performance, the bias was toward generality. the beauty of plan 9 is sum of these well-thought-out choices. as you point out, these choices are always worth revisiting. they seem to be working well for the time being. btw, plan 9 is perfectly well-suited to your examples. - erik
