[TUHS] move to COFF Re: Re: Proper use of TUHS (was Re: Typesetter C compiler)

[Will Senn]

We're in COFF territory again. I am enjoying the conversation, but let's 
self monitor. Perhaps, a workflow for this is that when we drift off 
into non-unix history discussion, we cc: COFF and tell folks to continue 
there? As a test I cced it on this email, don't reply all to this list. 
Just let's talk about it over in coff. If you aren't on coff join it.

If you aren't sure or think most folks on the list want to discuss it. 
Post it on COFF, if you don't get any traction, reference the COFF 
thread and tease it in TUHS.

This isn't at all a gripe - I heart all of our discussions, but I agree 
that it's hard to keep it history related here with no outlet for 
tangential discussion - so, let's put coff to good use and try it for 
those related, but not quite discussions.

Remember, don't reply to TUHS on this email :)!

- will

On 2/3/23 11:11 AM, Steve Nickolas wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
>> Some things will never go away, like keep your fingers off of my L1
>> cache lines.  I think it's mostly lost because of huge memories, but
>> one of the things I love about early Unix is how small everything was.
>> Most people don't care, but if you want to go really fast, there is no
>> replacement for small.
>>
>> Personally, I'm fine with some amount of "list about new systems where
>> we can ask about history because that helps us build those new systems".
>> Might be just me, I love systems discussions.
>
> I find a lot of my own stuff is like this - kindasorta fits and 
> kindasorta doesn't for similar reasons.
>
> (Since a lot of what I've been doing lately is creating a 
> SysV-flavored rewrite of Unix from my own perspective as a 
> 40-something who actually got most of my experience coding for 16-bits 
> and MS-DOS, and speaks fluent but non-native C.  I'm sure it comes out 
> in my coding style.)
>
> -uso.