> the argument that if the normal extension > mechanism for scripting languages is x, > thereforenot having x is a weakness seems > a version of argumentum ad populum. > > doesn't dynamic loading seem at odds with the > tools approach? the more complex the interface, > the less general the tool.
Dynamic loading allows scripting languages to load arbitrary binary extensions at run-time. Without dynamic loading in Plan 9 you need to recompile the Lua (or Python) interpreters to statically link in your binary extensions, so in this case dynamic loading makes the tool more general. (FWIW, as has been pointed out on this list previously, Inferno applications can dynamically load modules at run-time.) John
