Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Plan 9 is forked by Bell Labs

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-16 21:45

And development continues on under the new name "Plan 9 Front" by Bell Labs.

http://www.osnews.com/comments/24957

Also, guess who is the official mascot of Plan 9 Front?

https://code.google.com/p/plan9front/wiki/Mascot

Yes, it's for real.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-16 21:52

Everyone is invited to join the development of 9front. Discussions about 9front are held in #cat‐v on irc.freenode.net.

This is a cat-v production? Awesome. I may join. Also The Strongest Operating System.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-16 21:54

>>1
Sorry, I meant to say the development continues on under a new community driven process, not under Bell Labs.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-16 22:26

Did they drop the Unix?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-16 22:29

>>4
Of course not. I'm downloading the source right now, going to build and try to install it on a VM.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-16 22:31

Forget Anonix. 9front is now the new official /prog/. I'm going to port Haskell to 9front.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-16 22:35

>>1
"Plan 9 Front" by Bell Labs.
"Plan 9 has been forked to start a development out of the Bell Labs

This is going to die in a few weeks. Cirno as mascotte made me laugh.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-16 23:04

Forget it, it's not a Lisp machine!

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-16 23:09

>>8
It is potentially better than what we've got now.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 17:16

I'm going to drop ANONIX development and join Cirno immediately.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 18:17

If it ain't Lisp, it's crap.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 18:19

If it ain't anything but Lisp, it's crap.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 18:24

wat

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 19:26

http://thegreen.stanleylieber.com/src/927284892.png
echo: write error: one does not simply write into mordor
back to /b/, please

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 19:57

If it ain't not not not not not not not not Lisp, it's not not not not crap.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 20:30

>>15

¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬Lisp)))))))) → ¬(¬(¬(¬crap)))
______________________________________________
¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬Lisp)))))) → ¬(¬crap)
__________________________________
¬(¬(¬(¬(¬Lisp)))) → crap
________________________
¬(¬(¬Lisp)) → crap
__________________
¬Lisp → crap

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 20:31

>>16
you DIDN'T

SHUT. UP.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 20:48

crap(X) :- \+ lisp(X).

?- crap(lisp).
no.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-17 23:50

>>16

(→ (¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬ Lisp)))))))))
   (¬(¬(¬(¬crap)))))
______________________________________________
(→ (¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬(¬ Lisp))))))) 
   (¬(¬ crap)))
__________________________________
(→ (¬(¬(¬(¬(¬ Lisp))))) 
   crap)
________________________
(→ (¬(¬(¬ Lisp)))
   crap)
__________________
(→ (¬ Lisp) crap)

fixed

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 4:21

How C/C++ is better than Lisp?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 4:27

>>20
1.speed,less memory
2.can be understood without deciphering syntax

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 5:04

>>21
can be understood without deciphering syntax
you forgot "be people who already know C"

Lisp is easier syntax to understand than C for people who have never seen code before.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 5:04

forking everything you come across because you're too immature to contribute

sure is 12 year olds in here

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 5:10

>>22
No, its not like that. Lisp has context variations, cryptic macros and self-modifying code which cannot be "read" but has to be deduced from evaluating the entire program. C code can be read, even if heavily obfuscated, the structure cannot be hidden and can be evaluated piece by piece.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 5:19

>>24
that's not "syntax"

The syntax is s-expressions.

For example, your argument doesn't hold water for Scheme, where meaning is always lexically visible. (or at least is by convention.)

Also your argument doesn't hold on the other side for C++, which has more keywords than just about any language AND the ability to have understood environments via the this pointer and "using"

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 6:32

>>25
I don't normally abuse C++ features since they just add bloat and lower performance

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 6:50

>>13
Fritter shatterproof schooner cognizable layup spinach extend retire activism passenger! Bricklaying GSA concourse recoup.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 7:57

>>24
Then you start using the preprocessor, GObject happens.

>>24
Lisp can be parsed by a push-down automaton that implements a stupid recursive descent parser.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 8:38

>>28
GObject
I just vomited a little in my mouth.

Lisp
I just vomited a lot in my mouth.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 9:55

C could use 2-3 LISP features, but thats the point? Writing alot of macroed "write-only" code?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 9:58

>>30
It's only ``write-only'' if you can't read your own code. Lisp code tends to be rather self-explanatory, I usually understand my own and other people's with a lot of ease. It can slightly more difficult if someone decides to make up their own syntax, but luckily this feature is not abused by many. You should write your code to be understandable first and runnable second.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 11:29

Trojan?

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 11:38

Manatee bribe consultation dingo Israelite Typhon Victorian riddance legendary generosity... Epitaph Kermit swingy diadem a's sunny Yvette homesick warrior. Infix!

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 11:41

O'Connell bar en.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 11:50

Jakarta! Undulate incumbent.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 11:54

Italian Vega alpha indifferent honesty dissociate shaven halogen Confucian fuse. Vicious henequen Pickman member mesh endgame indecisive.

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 16:16

>>21
speed,less memory
There were a few Lisps with these qualities. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp

Name: Anonymous 2011-07-18 17:50

>>37
PreScheme too.

Name: Anonymous 2012-08-12 4:11

>>7

what now, nigger

Name: Anonymous 2012-08-12 4:44

>>37
I love it when retards use a fancy word to name some rubbish.

Name: Anonymous 2012-08-12 4:44

>>1
Plan 9
I love it when retards use a fancy word to name some rubbish.

Name: Anonymous 2012-08-12 5:43

>>6
You can't, because you need GCC for GHC, and GCC will never be ported to Plan 9.

Name: Anonymous 2012-08-12 8:32

>>39
Tsk.

Name: Anonymous 2012-08-12 10:46

check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2012-08-12 19:43

>>42
Plan 9 has had a Haskell implementation for years, in addition to ML and Ocaml, all without GCC. Of course there is a GCC port, but no-one uses it.

Name: Anonymous 2012-08-12 22:21

GCC considered harmful. Use TCC instead.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List