Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 25 Apr 2006 10:33:59 +0300 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: C++ pushback |
| |
[original poster de-cc'ed]
Martin Mares wrote: > Can you name any reasons for why should we support C++ in the kernel? > 1. Porting existing modules written in C++ - the trigger for this thread?
2. Shorter, faster, more robust code. > Why shouldn't we invest the effort to making it possible to write kernel > modules in Haskell instead? > C++ is a system programming language with good C compatibility. Making the kernel compatible with C++ is doable.
Haskell is an excellent language, but it is not a system programming language. Kernel programming does not fit well into the functional model. > 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. > That's certainly doable, however it is quite pointless since we know that the code will be rejected regardless of any technical merits it may have.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
- 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |