M. Warner Losh wrote:
In message: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
V lav Haisman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
: Deciding that some features are bad beforehand, before you evaluate them
: is IMO bad idea. Let interested people write a bunch of C++ modules with
: the complete language before deciding on what shouldn't be used.
There's actually a fair amount of experience with people doing C++ in
FreeBSD kernels. People have been doing things with it for about 8
years now. There are significant performance issues with even C code
compiled as C++. It is possible to write fast C++ for kernel work,
but it is also very easy to write really bad C++ for kernel work.
Easier than bad C code.
Currently, GNU CC has made great advance in binary code execution
efficiency. And Intel C++ Compiler is also an excellent one. We can
evaluate them by assemble code generated by them.
I would repeat several sentences in my last reply.
Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET
Framework than direct Windows API?
Why is gtkmm framework created for GTK+?
Would you write a X11 application with original X11 API, without QT or
other X11 toolkit?
I believe the answer is that all programmers are human begins, not
machines. Human programmer would reduce brainwork, even if an API
package/wrapper slightly reduces running efficiency.
There's reasons that people here are somewhat skeptical about using
C++ in the kernel.
Warner
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Beijing, China
_______________________________________________
freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
