Re: [9fans] A newbie question... - Plan9

This is a discussion on Re: [9fans] A newbie question... - Plan9 ; On Feb 2, 2008 11:22 AM, Juan M. Mendez wrote: > So what are the facts to back up so many posts regarding autotools badness? > Just curious. 1. it's not needed. See plan9 ports and lots of other tools ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 52

Thread: Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

  1. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    On Feb 2, 2008 11:22 AM, Juan M. Mendez wrote:

    > So what are the facts to back up so many posts regarding autotools badness?
    > Just curious.


    1. it's not needed. See plan9 ports and lots of other tools that
    somehow get by without it.
    2. a 150,000 line configure shell script? That right there should tell
    you something's seriously wrong.
    but it happens.
    3. it's not portable. Since the goal is portability, something has
    been lost here.
    4. Warning from the openib stack: you have version 1.59 (or some such)
    of autotools, and I need 1.60
    Oh, ok, there's a version of the configuration tools? What's wrong
    with this picture?

    It would all be funny but people actually use this stuff, and that's sad.

    ron

  2. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    Juan M. Mendez wrote:
    > On 02/02/2008, Martin Neubauer wrote:
    >> * Uriel (uriel99@gmail.com) wrote:
    >>> Autotools badness is way beyond most peoples wildest imagination...

    >> Unfortunately, you don't have to imagine.

    >
    > So what are the facts to back up so many posts regarding autotools badness?
    > Just curious.


    An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the Bell
    Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something like this:

    All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    Therefore, GNU is bad

  3. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    > An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the Bell
    > Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something like this:
    >
    > All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    > GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    > Therefore, GNU is bad
    >


    If you think about what the letters of GNU stand for, you might appreciate
    that the forms are in mutual opposition. They provide completely different
    approaches to software. "Good" and "Bad" are value judgments. If
    you think GNU is the right way to build things, Plan 9 is probably not
    for you, and vice versa.

    -rob

  4. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    Except that Bell Labs has shown much more appreciation for things
    invented outside than anyone else. Some of the best ideas in Unix were
    lifted from Multics, the genius was to drop all the cruft. CSP is
    another good example, ignored by a world that thinks pthreads is the
    only way to write concurrent applications... and there are many other
    examples that anyone that has done even the most cursory reading of
    the Plan 9 will already know about.

    Now, can you point to *anything* gnu has ever produced that is not at
    best a hideously grotesque copy of something that might have made
    sense thirty years ago.

    uriel

    P.S.: Sorry for being so easily trolled, but seems that I'm not the only one

    On Feb 3, 2008 2:17 AM, Robert William Fuller wrote:
    >
    > Juan M. Mendez wrote:
    > > On 02/02/2008, Martin Neubauer wrote:
    > >> * Uriel (uriel99@gmail.com) wrote:
    > >>> Autotools badness is way beyond most peoples wildest imagination...
    > >> Unfortunately, you don't have to imagine.

    > >
    > > So what are the facts to back up so many posts regarding autotools badness?
    > > Just curious.

    >
    > An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the Bell
    > Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something like this:
    >
    > All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    > GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    > Therefore, GNU is bad
    >


  5. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    > An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the Bell
    > Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something like this:
    >
    > All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    > GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    > Therefore, GNU is bad


    if this holds, then

    plan 9 uses ip, smtp, dns, ntp, ethernet, x86, &c.
    these were not invented at bell labs
    thus using plan 9 is bad.

    - erik

  6. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    Circular cause and consequence is funny. Let me add to this list:
    - jpg
    - png
    - tiff
    - PostScript
    - TeX (tpic)
    - HTML
    - Mahjongg, sokoban, sudoku, tetris (games/4s)
    - SPARC, MIPS, x64
    - MP3, PCM, OGG (PAC was made at Bell Labs)
    - SoundBlaster 16

    Let me put it this way:
    GNU software is good, except for GNU development tools, which,
    except for the gcc program itself, are mediocre and break
    compatibility (try using a Bell Labs makefile with GNU make).

    On Feb 2, 2008, at 8:42 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:

    >> An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the
    >> Bell
    >> Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something like
    >> this:
    >>
    >> All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    >> GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    >> Therefore, GNU is bad

    >
    > if this holds, then
    >
    > plan 9 uses ip, smtp, dns, ntp, ethernet, x86, &c.
    > these were not invented at bell labs
    > thus using plan 9 is bad.
    >
    > - erik



  7. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    >> An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the Bell
    >> Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something like this:
    >>
    >> All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    >> GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    >> Therefore, GNU is bad

    >
    > if this holds, then
    >
    > plan 9 uses ip, smtp, dns, ntp, ethernet, x86, &c.
    > these were not invented at bell labs
    > thus using plan 9 is bad.
    >
    > - erik


    I don't know that x86 qualifies as non-bad.

    John


  8. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:30:38 -0000, Rob Pike wrote:

    >> An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the Bell
    >> Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something like this:
    >>
    >> All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    >> GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    >> Therefore, GNU is bad
    >>

    >
    > If you think about what the letters of GNU stand for, you might
    > appreciate
    > that the forms are in mutual opposition. They provide completely
    > different
    > approaches to software. "Good" and "Bad" are value judgments. If
    > you think GNU is the right way to build things, Plan 9 is probably not
    > for you, and vice versa.
    >
    > -rob


    Is that "the" Rob Pike? "The R?"

    If so, please accept me humble reverence, sire! Hallowed be thy practice
    (of programming)!

    P. S. Down here in my country, Iran, we have this tradition of inventing
    sacred things out of thin air. A considerable proportion of "the divine
    and the sacred" spilled all over the globe began with that frailty of ours
    :-D

    --
    Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

  9. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    Hmmm, my question was not about new ideological war "GNU vs Plan9". ))
    I think that my bad English does not allow me to ask my question in
    correct form, so i will show some sample

    For example, in Linux i have some big application.
    This application using autotools, so if a want to port it, for example
    on different OS (of course if this OS has autotools) or hardware all i
    need is go throw sources and put something like:
    #ifdef RUN_IN_CYGWIN
    // some specific code
    #endif
    After that i need to add extra tests in configure and autotools will
    do all magic for me
    The main trouble is that all sources has really many pieces of #ifdef
    code, so it could be very painful to drop out "portability in GNU
    way". But it's ok, until that is a only way.

    Ok, for me "porting" to plan9 looks like:
    1. Drop out autotools from project
    2. Replace all OS specific code to Plan9 equivalent
    3. Replace all libs to it's equivalent for plan9
    4. and so on

    Main trouble in 1 step. Because after that i couldn't post in project
    mail list, "Hey gays, i have create Plan9 port of your application,
    please check it out and put in CVS trunk". If i "port" some
    application in that way, that mean that I've start new one, "from
    scratch" and just copy & paste some code from original project (

    I hope that i have logical mistakes in my example, and you show me
    that, because if not it could be very sad )



    2008/2/3, Eris Discordia :
    > On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:30:38 -0000, Rob Pike wrote:
    >
    > >> An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the Bell
    > >> Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something like this:
    > >>
    > >> All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    > >> GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    > >> Therefore, GNU is bad
    > >>

    > >
    > > If you think about what the letters of GNU stand for, you might
    > > appreciate
    > > that the forms are in mutual opposition. They provide completely
    > > different
    > > approaches to software. "Good" and "Bad" are value judgments. If
    > > you think GNU is the right way to build things, Plan 9 is probably not
    > > for you, and vice versa.
    > >
    > > -rob

    >
    > Is that "the" Rob Pike? "The R?"
    >
    > If so, please accept me humble reverence, sire! Hallowed be thy practice
    > (of programming)!
    >
    > P. S. Down here in my country, Iran, we have this tradition of inventing
    > sacred things out of thin air. A considerable proportion of "the divine
    > and the sacred" spilled all over the globe began with that frailty of ours
    > :-D
    >
    > --
    > Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
    >


  10. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    > Main trouble in 1 step. Because after that i couldn't post in project
    > mail list, "Hey gays, i have create Plan9 port of your application,
    > please check it out and put in CVS trunk".


    There's no cure for this. The touted portability of the autotools is
    restricted to the GNU environment and the moment you step outside of
    it, this is what occurs. It's a philosophy that has turned into a
    religion largely by losing its focus or, if you prefer, shifting its
    objective.

    Plan 9 becomes the proof thereof, if autotools were as successful as
    claimed, it ought to be trivial to port them to a different platform.
    It isn't, nor is it necessary. In porting the code for libtiff and
    geotiff to Plan 9 I added a few "mkfiles" to zlib, the jpeg tools,
    png, gd and eventually libtiff and geotiff. The sum total of these
    mkfiles is probably less than two thousand lines. But it is
    impossible to feed these back to the developers, because they do not
    fit into their philosophical scheme.

    As another example, check out graphviz. From version 1 to version 2
    (I think) they moved from a custom configurator to the autotools.
    Beside totally losing Plan 9 portability in the bargain, it is my
    impression that they spent more effort on the autotools details than
    in improving graphviz itself.

    ++L


  11. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    Thanks, this is very similar to my thoughts.

    So if i want port some big linux application to Plan9 i need start new
    project and copy parts of code from original one. From one side it is
    sad, because it's very ugly development model (for example if original
    project will be update, i need update my project too, so there are two
    "targets" for every update). On another hand i could concentrate on
    new Pla9 techniques and create more powerful analogous of linux
    software.

    thanks for replies )

    2008/2/3, lucio@proxima.alt.za :
    > > Main trouble in 1 step. Because after that i couldn't post in project
    > > mail list, "Hey gays, i have create Plan9 port of your application,
    > > please check it out and put in CVS trunk".

    >
    > There's no cure for this. The touted portability of the autotools is
    > restricted to the GNU environment and the moment you step outside of
    > it, this is what occurs. It's a philosophy that has turned into a
    > religion largely by losing its focus or, if you prefer, shifting its
    > objective.
    >
    > Plan 9 becomes the proof thereof, if autotools were as successful as
    > claimed, it ought to be trivial to port them to a different platform.
    > It isn't, nor is it necessary. In porting the code for libtiff and
    > geotiff to Plan 9 I added a few "mkfiles" to zlib, the jpeg tools,
    > png, gd and eventually libtiff and geotiff. The sum total of these
    > mkfiles is probably less than two thousand lines. But it is
    > impossible to feed these back to the developers, because they do not
    > fit into their philosophical scheme.
    >
    > As another example, check out graphviz. From version 1 to version 2
    > (I think) they moved from a custom configurator to the autotools.
    > Beside totally losing Plan 9 portability in the bargain, it is my
    > impression that they spent more effort on the autotools details than
    > in improving graphviz itself.
    >
    > ++L
    >
    >


  12. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    > So if i want port some big linux application to Plan9 i need start new
    > project and copy parts of code from original one. From one side it is
    > sad, because it's very ugly development model (for example if original
    > project will be update, i need update my project too, so there are two
    > "targets" for every update). On another hand i could concentrate on
    > new Pla9 techniques and create more powerful analogous of linux
    > software.


    Eventually, you'd think the autotools will fade, but reality sometimes
    turns out illogical. I think the "Plan 9 Way" will only become
    dominant if there is a major change to the present status.

    Strangely, no one criticises the Windows development tools...

    ++L


  13. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    > Strangely, no one criticises the Windows development tools...
    I do, it's horrible and even more, i just don't know such words on
    English, to describe all my feelings about windows build system )))

    Perhaps i do not known it very well, but i have some experience of
    development under windows, and that experience told me do not do such
    mistake (development under windows) once again ))

    2008/2/3, lucio@proxima.alt.za :
    > > So if i want port some big linux application to Plan9 i need start new
    > > project and copy parts of code from original one. From one side it is
    > > sad, because it's very ugly development model (for example if original
    > > project will be update, i need update my project too, so there are two
    > > "targets" for every update). On another hand i could concentrate on
    > > new Pla9 techniques and create more powerful analogous of linux
    > > software.

    >
    > Eventually, you'd think the autotools will fade, but reality sometimes
    > turns out illogical. I think the "Plan 9 Way" will only become
    > dominant if there is a major change to the present status.
    >
    > Strangely, no one criticises the Windows development tools...
    >
    > ++L
    >
    >


  14. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    You don't need to do all that if you know what libraries your program
    depends on. Libraries like pdcurses, libtiff, zlib, etc. have been
    ported to APE, so once you have them installed, all you need to do is
    run the configure file and then make from within ape/psh. However, if
    you need autoconf/automake before a configure file, you're out of luck.

    On Feb 3, 2008, at 3:44 AM, Filipp Andronov wrote:

    > Hmmm, my question was not about new ideological war "GNU vs Plan9". ))
    > I think that my bad English does not allow me to ask my question in
    > correct form, so i will show some sample
    >
    > For example, in Linux i have some big application.
    > This application using autotools, so if a want to port it, for example
    > on different OS (of course if this OS has autotools) or hardware all i
    > need is go throw sources and put something like:
    > #ifdef RUN_IN_CYGWIN
    > // some specific code
    > #endif
    > After that i need to add extra tests in configure and autotools will
    > do all magic for me
    > The main trouble is that all sources has really many pieces of #ifdef
    > code, so it could be very painful to drop out "portability in GNU
    > way". But it's ok, until that is a only way.
    >
    > Ok, for me "porting" to plan9 looks like:
    > 1. Drop out autotools from project
    > 2. Replace all OS specific code to Plan9 equivalent
    > 3. Replace all libs to it's equivalent for plan9
    > 4. and so on
    >
    > Main trouble in 1 step. Because after that i couldn't post in project
    > mail list, "Hey gays, i have create Plan9 port of your application,
    > please check it out and put in CVS trunk". If i "port" some
    > application in that way, that mean that I've start new one, "from
    > scratch" and just copy & paste some code from original project (
    >
    > I hope that i have logical mistakes in my example, and you show me
    > that, because if not it could be very sad )
    >
    >
    >
    > 2008/2/3, Eris Discordia :
    >> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 00:30:38 -0000, Rob Pike
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by
    >>>> the Bell
    >>>> Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something
    >>>> like this:
    >>>>
    >>>> All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    >>>> GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    >>>> Therefore, GNU is bad
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> If you think about what the letters of GNU stand for, you might
    >>> appreciate
    >>> that the forms are in mutual opposition. They provide completely
    >>> different
    >>> approaches to software. "Good" and "Bad" are value judgments. If
    >>> you think GNU is the right way to build things, Plan 9 is
    >>> probably not
    >>> for you, and vice versa.
    >>>
    >>> -rob

    >>
    >> Is that "the" Rob Pike? "The R?"
    >>
    >> If so, please accept me humble reverence, sire! Hallowed be thy
    >> practice
    >> (of programming)!
    >>
    >> P. S. Down here in my country, Iran, we have this tradition of
    >> inventing
    >> sacred things out of thin air. A considerable proportion of "the
    >> divine
    >> and the sacred" spilled all over the globe began with that frailty
    >> of ours
    >> :-D
    >>
    >> --
    >> Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
    >>



  15. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    No one remembers the Windows development tools!

    Actually, I have a clear memory of Visual Studio 2005 Express, as I
    used to develop in C#. That system was one of the (cough - only -
    cough) good things Microsoft made.

    On Feb 3, 2008, at 7:49 AM, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:

    >> So if i want port some big linux application to Plan9 i need start
    >> new
    >> project and copy parts of code from original one. From one side it is
    >> sad, because it's very ugly development model (for example if
    >> original
    >> project will be update, i need update my project too, so there are
    >> two
    >> "targets" for every update). On another hand i could concentrate on
    >> new Pla9 techniques and create more powerful analogous of linux
    >> software.

    >
    > Eventually, you'd think the autotools will fade, but reality sometimes
    > turns out illogical. I think the "Plan 9 Way" will only become
    > dominant if there is a major change to the present status.
    >
    > Strangely, no one criticises the Windows development tools...
    >
    > ++L
    >



  16. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    On Feb 3, 2008 2:55 AM, Pietro Gagliardi wrote:
    > Circular cause and consequence is funny. Let me add to this list:
    > - jpg
    > - png
    > - tiff
    > - PostScript
    > - TeX (tpic)
    > - HTML
    > - Mahjongg, sokoban, sudoku, tetris (games/4s)
    > - SPARC, MIPS, x64
    > - MP3, PCM, OGG (PAC was made at Bell Labs)
    > - SoundBlaster 16
    >
    > Let me put it this way:
    > GNU software is good, except for GNU development tools, which,
    > except for the gcc program itself, are mediocre and break
    > compatibility (try using a Bell Labs makefile with GNU make).
    >


    I'd add to it the fact that autotools source files are hard to make, so
    many people who are to lazy to do it properly just put the famous
    (in)sanity check and checks for libs they use. The effect?

    A simple C program that doesn't rely on anything except for example libpng
    will check for C, C++, FORTRAN 77 compilers, check if those are from
    GCC and various other things.

    Imagine my surprise when I had seen a configure script (for EmacsLisp
    utility) that only checked for Emacs version
    and few EmacsLisp files it used - a rare thing IMHO, when >80% of
    configure running time is for checking for not used
    software.

    "CPU cycles are cheap, programmer time is expensive" <--- This doesn't
    mean that total laziness is appropriate.

    The best thing about autotools is I think the scheme of running
    configure - AFAIK mplayer doesn't even use configure for it's script,
    instead
    they use their own, which looks the same to end user. And saves a lot
    of time :-)

    --
    Paul Lasek

  17. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    On 3 Feb 2008, at 00:17, Robert William Fuller wrote:
    > An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the
    > Bell Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something
    > like this:
    >
    > All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    > GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    > Therefore, GNU is bad


    Hello children. Today's word is "ad hominem". Can you say "ad
    hominem"?

    "We are the knights who say 'NIH'". Not.

    Nobody's mentioned the antecedents of autoconf&co.
    other than genealogically.

    The criticism has been (IMO) well-reasoned.

    If the appraisals appear somewhat vituperative at times,
    that is probably because the writers thereof constitute some of the
    sorry
    band of unfortunates (myself included) who have been persuaded by
    circumstance
    to engage in bootless battle with the autoconf hydra.

    We eagerly await ingenious and novel counter-arguments explicating the
    intrinsic intellectual beauty and universal utility of a so-called
    portability system
    consisting of 10K+SLOCs of convoluted, inscrutable and non-portable
    configuration scripts
    intertwined with a twisty maze of twisted #ifdefs.

    DaveL

  18. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    That someone had the time and the will to do something like this?

    On Feb 3, 2008, at 10:01 AM, dave.l@mac.com wrote:

    > On 3 Feb 2008, at 00:17, Robert William Fuller wrote:
    >> An alternative interpretation is that the facts are skewed by the
    >> Bell Labs reality distortion field. The syllogism goes something
    >> like this:
    >>
    >> All things not made at Bell Labs are bad
    >> GNU is not made at Bell Labs
    >> Therefore, GNU is bad

    >
    > Hello children. Today's word is "ad hominem". Can you say "ad
    > hominem"?
    >
    > "We are the knights who say 'NIH'". Not.
    >
    > Nobody's mentioned the antecedents of autoconf&co.
    > other than genealogically.
    >
    > The criticism has been (IMO) well-reasoned.
    >
    > If the appraisals appear somewhat vituperative at times,
    > that is probably because the writers thereof constitute some of the
    > sorry
    > band of unfortunates (myself included) who have been persuaded by
    > circumstance
    > to engage in bootless battle with the autoconf hydra.
    >
    > We eagerly await ingenious and novel counter-arguments explicating the
    > intrinsic intellectual beauty and universal utility of a so-called
    > portability system
    > consisting of 10K+SLOCs of convoluted, inscrutable and non-portable
    > configuration scripts
    > intertwined with a twisty maze of twisted #ifdefs.
    >
    > DaveL



  19. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    > because something had to be used to compile Plan 9 itself, etc and I
    figure it's not being done as a cross-compiler.

    I'm sorry my new friend but I think that's the funniest 9fans post I've
    ever seen, how ... but .... surely you ..... aw come on

    To redeem myself I shall offer this link to one of the other C compilers
    that exist in the world :
    http://plan9.bell-labs.com/magic/man2html/1/2c


  20. Re: [9fans] A newbie question...

    And when you thought it couldn't get better, from the top of
    http://www.comeaucomputing.com

    "Bursting With So Much Language Support It Hurts!"

    Most fortune-worthy line ever.

    uriel

    On Feb 4, 2008 12:52 PM, wrote:
    > > because something had to be used to compile Plan 9 itself, etc and I

    > figure it's not being done as a cross-compiler.
    >
    > I'm sorry my new friend but I think that's the funniest 9fans post I've
    > ever seen, how ... but .... surely you ..... aw come on
    >
    > To redeem myself I shall offer this link to one of the other C compilers
    > that exist in the world :
    > http://plan9.bell-labs.com/magic/man2html/1/2c
    >
    >


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast