Messages in this thread |  | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: Linux kernel modules development in C++ | Date | Thu, 28 Sep 2000 18:19:52 +0200 |
| |
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.
-- Daniel - 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/
|  |