![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
* Richard B. Johnson (root@chaos.analogic.com) wrote: > > I would like to rewrite the kernel in FORTRAN because this was > one of the first languages I learned. > > Seriously, the kernel MUST be written in a procedural language. > It is the mechanism by which something is accomplished that defines > an operating system kernel. > > C++ is an object-oriented language, in fact the opposite of a > procedural language. It is not suitable. Bollox! There are many places in the kernel that are actually very OO - look at filesystems for example. The super_operations sturcture is in effect a virtual function table. Sure making every file an object is probably OTT; but large scale things like a filesystem, a network device or the like probably actually fit very well. Sure, there are a lot of features of C++ to stay clear of - exception handling probably being one of them, and I wouldn't let the C++ stuff anywhere near the memory management code. Point being that it is a case of using the write tool for the job. C++ douesn't add any extra overhead just by calling it C++ and not using any of the features; careful use of the features where appropriate does no harm and might actually make the code cleaner, and possibly more efficient. I will agree going head in and just throwing C++ at it is a bad thing. Dave ---------------- Have a happy GNU millennium! ---------------------- / Dr. David Alan Gilbert | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy \ \ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM, SPARC and HP-PA | In Hex / \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org |_______/ - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 13:22 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||