On 2009-01-05 00:17, Michael Neumann wrote: > Am 04.01.2009 19:26, schrieb Pieter Dumon: > > It's just political, there's pros and cons for everything. > > Its not because LT says something that it's true. > > Oh, I love Linus for his "strong opinions". He makes me laugh :)
He's a known C++phobic and it's quite obvious that he's not very familiar with the C++ language or how to use it. > > Some people have demonstrated nice work in C++ (e.g. some L4 variants). > > Whatever language you use, it all comes down to using it properly. > > But if your whole kernel is written in C, better to leave it at that :-) > > The worst thing you can do is mix and match C and C++ I think - that > > would be really crappy. > > Yep, that is what I was thinking too. Mixing C and C++ is not nice. The > two languages are still too different is some aspects. Nevertheless > generics (i.e. C++ templates) and some form of subtyping could really > help to make C a better, more expressive language. It would be interesting to see how much work it would take to compile the kernel with g++ instead, after all most valid C is also valid (and semantically equal) C++. If one were to use C++ as what some call "C with classes" and perhaps also templates there would not be much difference, the big question is how much C++ features one would allow i.e. virtual functions, multiple inheritance, etc. Another possibility, depending on the modularity if the kernel, is to compile one or more subsystems as C++ and then link them together. That would allow for some parts to be written in C and others in C++. -- Erik Wikström
