On 2009-01-05 12:33, Jeremy Chadwick wrote: > On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Michael Neumann wrote: >> This question bugs me since a quite long time so I write it down... >> >> FreeBSD had a long thread about pros and cons of using C++ >> in the kernel here [1]. >> >> I'm undecided whether it would be good to use C++ in the DragonFly kernel. > > Regardless of what folks decide, I ask that everyone keep one thing in > mind (which so far in this thread has not been mentioned): > > This is an open-source project. What guarantee is there that all > members of the project (at the time, or in the future) are going to > understand all the intricacies and C++ nomenclature?
> This story is not meant to reflect on C++ the language. I hope readers > understand the point of the story, and take into considerations the pros > and cons of said choice. That is a very important consideration, however I would like to point out that for kernel development only a very limited subset of the C++ language would be used. I would assume that the most desirable features would be 1) real classes with member-functions as opposed to structs and functions that work on them, 2) inheritance, 3) constructors/ destructors, and 4) templates, which are quite easy to understand. Of course, to be honest I don't see C++ in the kernel any time soon (or ever) since I expect that just the work on getting the infrastructure in place would be quite high (getting new to work as it should, probably some compiler and linker issues, etc.). -- Erik Wikström
