At the risk of starting a holy war here, I must interject my
$00.01999999.
Whether or not an OO language was used in the development of
and OS and/or it's utilities has absolutely nothing to do with
the feature set of the platform and its user interface. They
are two totally seperate things that only share similarity at
the surface.
Now, an OO user interface design is wonderful. OO languages
are great for developing applications. But neither requires,
nor implies the other.
There are valid reasons for using C or C++ for a particular task.
For application development, I do prefer OO, in particular Java.
However, for working at the device level or inside an OS kernel,
developers still strongly prefer more traditional C for many reasons.
#1 It's easier to get a fully functional bug free C compiler
prototyped quickly for new hardware/OS than it is a bulky C++
compiler and all it's "weirdness".
#2 The really low level developers like myself usually find OO to be an
encumberance. There are some people who use it at the lower levels
I know, but in 10 years of hardware hacking, I've yet to actually
meet one of those people.
On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 12:28:26PM -0700, patrick wrote:
> Though I indicated that linux and many linux apps were
> written in c, not c++, the general response was "so?".
>
> This got me wondering about the use of c and the CONTINUED
> use of c in many linux/unix apps as well as in the kernel
> itself.
>
> As for oo programming, I think that any os can benefit
> from this. OS/2 was oo and it handled things quite nicely
> compared to ANY other os I have used, including linux. I
> actually think that linux would benefit from more oo
> design, but that is another thread.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: fred smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 1999 11:54 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: recipient.list.not.shown
> Subject: Re: question about linux and c
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 1999 at 10:53:13AM -0700, patrick wrote:
> > I have been wondering of late why it is that much of
> > the heart of linux and many linux apps are written
> > in c rather than c++. Why is this? Why not convert
> > everything over...presumeably c++ allows for tighter,
> > more efficient code.
> >
> > patrick
>
> Linux is written in C because, well, it's written in C. Given that
> it is a unix clone it seems appropriate.
>
> Why not not rewrite it in C++? Well lotsa arguments on both sides, one
> is simply inertia. it aint broke so why do that? But also, C++ is a
> [...]
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
> as the Subject.
>
--
J. Scott Kasten
jsk AT tetracon-eng DOT net
"That wasn't an attack. It was preemptive retaliation!"
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
