Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: What if? | Date | Mon, 06 Dec 2004 15:52:36 -0300 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
linux-os <linux-os@chaos.analogic.com> said: > On Sun, 5 Dec 2004, Horst von Brand wrote:
[...]
> > C++ is sufficiently not C that for such it is probably best to just > > redesign the systems. Well done it is probably more elegant than C, but to > > get there is a _lot_ of work.
> There is another problem. The kernel requires a procedural language > to communicate with hardware. Interface with hardware is all about > the step-by-step methods necessary to make hardware run. C++ tries > to isolate one from the actual methods involved. That's what it > was designed for.
If you want isolation. The actual methods (I'm assuming function members) are written in procedural style if you want to.
> One would need to use "extensions" just to get text to the screen. 'C' > being an "smart" assembler, is nearly ideal for kernel development.
And C++ is supposed to be an OO extension to C, designed to give a (knowledgeable) programmer exactly the same low-level control as C when needed (knowlegdeable, tasteful programmer is requisite). -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand User #22616 counter.li.org Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |