In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wolfgang Draxinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
I have yet to encounter a C++ compiler that will refuse to compile a program if it does not use polymorphism, passing objects by reference, and templates. There is nothing forcing someone who writes a kernel in C++ to do those (possibly) questionable things. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss