[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Criticism]C++ Flamewar
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Generic Kernel Geek wrote:
> >
> > C++ sucks for kernel dev, because I say it does.

the original-original post was somebody asking why not make the kernel headers
C++ friendly.

all he wanted was the c++ reserved words removed from / kept out of the headers.

that way, if they for some reason want to write, or maybe proto a MODULE in c++
they could. no reference to putting C++ in the kernel, just writing a module
in it. to me this means that the MODULE would have to be linked w/ libg++
_NOT_ the kernel.

only his module and its users and would have to pay this price.

no need for a flame war, all that needed to be said was "sorry, we dont
currently support it and I have too much work already, but if you want to
develop a patch..."

instead this turned into a "you suck for even thinking it" flamewar.

p.s. there are lots of examples of kernels written mainly in c++ that work
quite nicely, and most of them are LESS than 7 years old. see the OSF's MK++
(a C++ black box Mach re-implementation), ECOS, BEOS (all except the core of
the kernel) etc etc...

** Mark Salisbury | **
** "WYGIWYD - What You Get Is What You Deserve" **

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.067 / U:5.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site