> Alone the fact that its creators went on to design Plan 9, Inferno, Alef, Limbo and Go, shows even they moved on to better approaches.
I think you're confusing "different" with "better", and you're confusing someone'small almost personal experiments implemented as proof-of-concept projects as actually being improvements.
I mean, Plan 9 was designed with a radical push for distributed computing in mind. This is not "better" than UNIX's design goals, just different.
Nevertheless, Plan 9 failed to gain any traction and in practice was pronounced dead around a decade ago. In the meantime, UNIX and Unix-like OSes dominate the computing world still up to this day. How does that reflect in your "better approaches" assertion?
The argument on the Go programming language is particularly perplexing. The design goal of Go has nothing to do with the design goal of C. Their designers were very clear in how their design goals was to put together a high-level programming language and tech stack designed to improve Google's specific problems. This wasn't C's design requirements, were they?
> We really are using a 1970s era operating system well past its sell-by date. We get a lot done, and we have fun, but let's face it, the fundamental design of Unix is older than many of the readers of Slashdot, while lots of different, great ideas about computing and networks have been developed in the last 30 years. Using Unix is the computing equivalent of listening only to music by David Cassidy.
Go is basically Limbo in a new clothing, Limbo took up the lessons on Alef's design failure.
They could have designed their C++ wannabe replacement in many other ways.
If anyone were brave enough to grasp the nettle, I proposed a fairly simple doable set of changes that could make it more useful in this talk last year:
I think you're confusing "different" with "better", and you're confusing someone'small almost personal experiments implemented as proof-of-concept projects as actually being improvements.
I mean, Plan 9 was designed with a radical push for distributed computing in mind. This is not "better" than UNIX's design goals, just different.
Nevertheless, Plan 9 failed to gain any traction and in practice was pronounced dead around a decade ago. In the meantime, UNIX and Unix-like OSes dominate the computing world still up to this day. How does that reflect in your "better approaches" assertion?
The argument on the Go programming language is particularly perplexing. The design goal of Go has nothing to do with the design goal of C. Their designers were very clear in how their design goals was to put together a high-level programming language and tech stack designed to improve Google's specific problems. This wasn't C's design requirements, were they?
https://go.dev/talks/2012/splash.article