lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Oct]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [Criticism] On the discussion about C++ modules
Date
    Wasn't the original complaint that the kernel headers use C++ keyword
and thus prevent the writing of, at least some, modules in C++. I have
written C++ code before that was as least as fast as comparable C code and
more efficient in some ways. Whether this could be or not be reproduced in
kernel code I do not know. So far I have done my kernel programming in C.
However even if I or other programmers would like to give this a try it is
my understanding we cannot because of the header situation. I think it is
unfair to attack C++ kernel code that is unable to come into existence, at
least without jumping through a bunch of hoops, due to external influences
(i.e. the incompatible headers).

On a separate note. Isn't one of the philosophies behind Linux the idea
of freedom. If people wish to try and program their modules in C++ for
whatever reason, be it porting from existing code or to object orient their
code, should they be free to do so. If the header situation is true, which
I am not sure of since I have not tried to do C++ programming in kernel
code, then people aren't free to write modules however they wished. Seeing
as fixing the headers should be rather trivial and probably is the right
thing to do anyway (using existing language keywords is a bad idea) I do not
see why this same flame war must erupt every time the header situation is
brought up. Its not as if C++ code would all of the sudden popup in the
kernel core forcing everybody to use C++. At best a driver here and there
might start using it and its continual usage would depend on if its
implementation is successful or not. And those drivers themselves are
extremely likely to be self-contained thus not affecting anybody else's
kernel code.

> 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?).
>
> Sending 500 rants to the kernel list isn't even close to
> being productive. Sending 1 patch is...
>
> regards,
>
> Rik
> --
> "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!"
> -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000
>
> http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/
>
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 12:41    [W:0.098 / U:12.180 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site