On Thu, Sep 28, 2000 at 02:30:00AM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
> > Again, you don't need to use exception handling in order to use C++.
> > None of my C++ drivers use exception handling, and they don't need
> > to.
>
> You implement C++, or you don't. I hate things only partially
> implemented / used, it's a pain in the ass.
>
(not that I'm defending C++ support in the kernel, but...)
"We'd need all of C++, or nothing" is a bogus argument. It's perfectly
reasonable to want to use a subset of C++, since C++ is such an
all-inclusive language. At my last systems programming job (at
Geoworks) we had a whole graphical embedded OS implemented in C++ and had
basically no bloat or performance problems (and it had one of the only
Java implementations I've seen that didn't suck performance-wise :-).
The problems we ran into were almost always related to crappy C++
support in embedded compilers; it was always nice when we got to use g++.
Of course, 2/3 of our coding conventions were made up of "don't use X
feature of C++", where some values of X were "templates" and "exceptions".
Even (especially) with that stuff removed, you get a reasonably
straightforward language for systems programming. Of course, we also
shipped OS + apps as a single, statically linked image (appropriate for
a cell phone w/ no MMU), so we also didn't have to deal with the binary
compatibility problems that C++ frequently brings.
miket
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
