[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [Criticism] On the discussion about C++ modules
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Eray Ozkural wrote:
> Rik van Riel wrote:
> > If C++ really is that good for kernel modules, I'd like to
> > see some code that proves it can be done without too much
> > of a performance hit (or without a performance hit at all?).
> it can be done in theory :)

I guess I'll have to quote Larry McVoy here ...

"In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice
they are not."

> > Sending 500 rants to the kernel list isn't even close to
> > being productive. Sending 1 patch is...
> i already made that point. the only proof that it can
> be done is the demonstration of an actual kernel module
> without a grave performance hit.


If there is anybody around who seriously believes C++ would
be a good language for kernel modules, consider this a
challange to show us that this is the case.

I'm willing to look at code and/or benchmark numbers showing
that you people are right, but assertions that nobody backs
up with code go into /dev/null pretty quickly...


"What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
-- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000

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:0.159 / U:0.612 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site