Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 24 Apr 2006 15:36:50 -0600 | From | "Jeff V. Merkey" <> | Subject | Re: C++ pushback |
| |
Martin Mares wrote:
>>If there is a childish temper tantrum mentality about C++ then I have >>no reason or desire to be on this list. >> >> > >Can you name any reasons for why should we support C++ in the kernel? >Why shouldn't we invest the effort to making it possible to write kernel >modules in Haskell instead? > >The kernel is written in C and its maintainers have so far agreed that >C is enough and adding any other language brings more pain than gain. > >If you think otherwise, feel free to submit some real code which shows >the advantages of using a different language. > > Have a nice fortnight > > C++ in the kernel is a BAD IDEA. C++ code can be written in such a convoluted manner as to be unmaintainable and unreadable. All of the hidden memory allocations from constructor/destructor operatings can and do KILL OS PERFORMANCE. Java is a great example as to why kernel OS code should NEVER be allowed in C++.
C and C++ really show their origins when used in kernel level programming. So what were C and C++ originally -- they were grades. :-)
I applaud the LKML folks pushing back on C++.
A++.
Jeff
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |