[lkml]   [2000]   [Sep]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRE: Linux kernel modules development in C++
The C++ standard, like most language standards is available from ANSI, in
the US. It is ISO/IEC standard 14882, and can be purchased online as a PDF
document from ANSI.
8) It costs $18 for an individual.

Standards bodies such as the IEEE and ANSI charge for copies of standards
because that helps them with the cost of producing and distributing the
standards. The cost for the ANSI standards is nominal.

My own opinion is that no, the nominal cost of standards documents has
little to do with why programmers don't have complete and up to date
definitions of the language. Most of them, after all, are willing to pay
3-4 times that much for tutorial or text books on the language, often more
than one. My opinion is that few C or C++ programmers actually possess
complete and up to date definitions of the language, because many of them
are unaware of or uninterested in the existence of such standards, because
they believe that the dielect of the language they are using on their
platform of choice is, for their purposes, the language, and so they believe
they only need the vendor reference for the language. Also, standards are
written in a peculiar style and dialect, and they require developing a
certain kind of reading skill to be useful.

This list provides, I believe, an example of a class of programmers who have
little interest in the standard definition of the language, since, I'm told,
the Linux kernel isn't written in a standard programming language, but,
rather, in a dialect which is a subset of Gnu C. Thus, to be a linux kernel
hacker, it seems, one would be more interested in knowing what that dialect
is than in knowing what the standard is.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Daniel Phillips []
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 1:16 AM
> To: Marty Fouts
> Subject: Re: Linux kernel modules development in C++
> Marty Fouts wrote:
> > IMO, it was worse even than that. C++ itself hadn't
> stablized as a language
> > to the point where it would have been wise to use on a
> kernel at that time.
> >
> > The language only really stablized in '99, I think. It's
> too soon to tell
> > whether it would be usable for kernel development, although
> various projects
> > that have tried to use it in an OO way have floundered for
> one reason or
> > another.
> So, (trying to salvage something useful from this thread) where can I
> download this standard? Or is it, as I suspect, another toll
> bridge on
> the information highway? And if so, why do we insist on doing stupid
> things like that to ourselves? And could this have something to do
> with the fact that very few C or C++ programmers actually possess
> complete and uptodate definitions of the languages?
> --
> Daniel
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 12:38    [W:0.091 / U:2.648 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site