On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Dustin Cross wrote: >BeOS was written in C++ and it was one of the best operating systems I have >ever used. It was fast and efficient.
Do you know if they use exceptions, STL, and RTTI? These aren't the main features of C++, but I can't imagine an OS using these things. The only way I can see C++ being used to implement an OS is if it is used as a better C compiler. There is nothing wrong with this, but it can't be considered C++. On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Ray Strode wrote: >C offers more portability and better abi compatibility than C++. C++ >compilers tend to be more buggy than C (which contributes to the >portability problem). C is better for making bindings to other languages >(in part because of it's better abi compatibility). I agree, in the past I did have problems with linking C++ objects (not compiling C++ source). But I haven't experienced such problems in a while. Are people still having these problems now? >I think he's saying that the syntax is harder to get right, so it takes >more changes to get the code to compile. Seems like what I'm hearing is that if a programmer doesn't know the syntax well, s/he shouldn't use that language. Well, I have a hard time disagreeing with that. Though I wouldn't generalize this statement. >In my opinion C is a good language for libraries and application >frameworks (e.g. like GNOME), but I think applications themselves should >be written in something more highlevel like Python. A GUI framework in C? I guess if you've done it before, you have the benefit of experience. But if I were to start from scratch, I wouldn't do anything GUI based in C. The GUI domain is perfect for the OO methodology. And like Eric said, using C to emulate OO is just evil. ;-) --jc -- Jimen Ching (WH6BRR) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]