fnegroni wrote: >> Does Linus Torvalds not like C++? > > No, he does not :-)
Well, I know only the comments Linus Torvalds made about the implications of using C++ to develop a kernel. And I totally agree with him in his statements. Programming a kernel you want to control every bit of the program (yes I know, that this sentence can be interpreted in many ways, and each way totaly matches what I mean). A languages like C++, that hides (some) vital aspects of the underlying mechanisms can break things at such a low level application. I'm thinking mainly about the way, polymorphism is implemented (there's no standard about that in current C++), how name mangling is performed (dito), calling conventions if objects are passed by reference (dito). Another problem is, that the use of some C++ features (I'm looking at templates here) will start a chain reaction in which code is created generically w/o having any influence on the exact outcome. This is not the same like using macros to create a similair effect; doing it with a macro one must exactly know what's going on. IMHO C++ was once a fine language, but it took some problematic turns. The existence of tools like "moc" of Qt, a own, not fully standardized interface description language (IDL) to be translated in a set of abstract interface classes and from those derived implementation classes, not to forget gccxml to give the guy who want's some too to process C++ without getting into a lof of trouble are symptoms for this. I dunno, but I got a row of programming language books in my shelf and "The C++ programming language" by Stroustroup is easly the thickest. It even beats "Modern Compiler Design" and goes equal with Volume 2 and 3 of "The Art of Computer Programming". Wolfgang Draxinger -- E-Mail address works, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED], ICQ: 134682867 _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
