[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Criticism] On the discussion about C++ modules
On Mon, Oct 16, 2000 at 02:49:47PM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> >
> > Not meant to offend, but it's obvious you are not grasping hardware
> > optimization issues relative to kernel development and performance. I
> > would recommend getting your hands on a bus analyzer, and testing out
> > some of your theories, and explore for yourself relative to these issues
> > with some hard numbers.
> Agree. ASM generated from C is far better to predict then ASM from
> C++. With issues as timing dependent hardware it is crucial.
> My opinion is that C++ should stay out of the kernel. Next thing someone
> wants is Visual Basic in the kernel because 'it has some nice
> features'. As long as the kernel in C works leave it that way.

You're right. If someone want to hack kernel but he knows only perl it's not
a good idea to write source in perl and apply that patch into the kernel
tree somehow ;-) I think everything can be done in C because C is Turing
compatible language. We can use many-many languages because 'they have
got some nice features' but everything can be done in simple C as well !
This casue much easier maintaing not counting the fact that not every kernel
hacker know C++, only C. Let's inmageine a superb programming language.
Linux kernel at this point won't include sources written in 'superb'.
Because it's hard to maintain, not every hacker know it and it make
diffult to cooperate (interfacing between the two languages, ugly hacks
to do that, slower and bigger code).

- Gábor
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:0.175 / U:0.788 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site