> Plan 9 was a middle step for Inferno, the OS HNers keep forgetting about. I am aware of Inferno. Also, the irony in talking about "HNers" as an Other, when

> Plan 9 was a middle step for Inferno, the OS HNers keep forgetting about. I am aware of Inferno. Also, the irony in talking about "HNers" as an Other, when you yourself are, to me, a random HNer. It's like an Anon implicitly complaining about an Anon, rather amusing. > Dynamic linking is everywhere on Inferno, implemented by the same Rob Pike of that email thread. Sure, but (if I remember correctly) Inferno also is written on/as a virtual machine. Inferno had rather different aims compared to most "UNIX" systems, whereas Plan 9 was a unification and generalization of the "UNIX" paradigm. Windows NT (Or was it DOS) was built, in part, off of UNIX. That doesn't mean that we should look to Windows NT as an ideal UNIX system, because the design considerations are different, and the aims of the system are different. > Also many seem unaware that Go supports dynamic linking for a couple of versions already. Sure, that's not to say there wasn't a huge amount of debate around that. I believe in the end it was more or less agreed that language uptake was more important in this case, but I could be wrong. Regardless, if one is properly appraised of the debate around Go supporting dynamic linking, you can find Uriel, et al. have some solid arguments against dynamic linking.