![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:03:46AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > >There are a few anti C++ bigots around too, but the kernel choice of C > >was based both on rational choices and experimentation early on with the > >C++ compiler. > > > Times have changed, though. The C++ compiler is much better now, and the > recent slew of error handling bugs shows that C is a very unsafe language. > > I think it's easy to show that the equivalent C++ code would be shorter, > faster, and safer. Please read: http://unthought.net/c++/c_vs_c++.html This explains, in simple terms, why you are just as right as you are wrong. Snippet: ------------- Note, that I am not arguing that everything is rewritten in C++. There are many large projects out there which are written in C - I do not believe that it is a good idea to just "convert" them to C++. C++ allows for cleaner solutions than C does, for a great many problems. Doing a minimal conversion of a solution which is "as clean as it gets" in C, to C++, would convert "good C" code into "poor C++". That is not a change to the better! ------------- And let's forget about this thread then please. -- / jakob - 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: 2006-04-25 07:58 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||