[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux kernel modules development in C++
    Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
    > On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
    > > > OO is indeed != C++. But since it's a relative if C, it's the most
    > > > suitable option to use in the kernel.
    > >
    > > What's wrong with C itself?
    > Nothing. What I was saying if you want some OO language in the kernel, C++
    > is the only option I guess. Mixing languages is a pain..

    Well, I *like* using // for one line comments, and I *hate* having my
    code obfuscated with extra declaration lines just because I can't
    declare something in the middle of a block. There is no reason whatever
    to hang on to such stupid limitations in C in the mistaken belief that
    it somehow keeps it more pure. On the other hand, I hate bloat even
    more than I hate those other two things. On the third hand, the first
    feature is already in every known C compiler (but you will be pecked to
    death by a flock of penguins if you use it) and the second feature
    actually represents a simplification of the compiler code, which in case
    anyone doesn't know uses the same code generator and most of the same
    parser whether you write in C or C++ - so I don't know where all those
    arguments about relative efficiency of generated code are coming from.

    The way to get C++ into the kernel is to get some of the less invasive
    features of C++ into C. This process started a long time ago and will
    never stop. Gosh, even if you are a C++ hater you are probably already
    using a bagfull of C++ features.

    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 12:39    [W:0.023 / U:0.276 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site