Messages in this thread | | | From | "Anthony Barbachan" <> | Subject | Re: C++ in kernel (was Re: exception in a device driver) | Date | Sat, 16 Jan 1999 22:34:35 -0500 |
| |
-----Original Message----- From: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> To: Anthony Barbachan <barbacha@Hinako.AMBusiness.com> Cc: Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@MIT.EDU>; Chip Salzenberg <chip@perlsupport.com>; Tor Arntsen <tor@spacetec.no>; linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu <linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu> Date: Saturday, January 16, 1999 9:58 PM Subject: Re: C++ in kernel (was Re: exception in a device driver)
> > >On Sat, 16 Jan 1999, Anthony Barbachan wrote: > >> I haven't been crazy with most of the changes in the new standard of C++ >> either, actually I oppose many of them, but just because they are there >> doesn't mean I'll be forced to use them either. > >Sorry, but it means that standard C++ is fundamentally broken. *If* one >has to avoid some features at any cost it means that you are advocating >usage of language different from C++. It may be a subset of C++, but it is >*not* C++ per se. Feel free to hack up a compiler for that language and >we'll have something to discuss. Personally I think that exceptions are >broken by design and templates are bad parody on real functional >languages. If you happen to have a free compiler of Clean or Miranda (free >to hack it) I'll be glad to play with *that*. But that means writing from >scratch (with pieces on C for additional primitive combinators; they may >be taken from existing kernel). >
Oh, so if I do not use any #defines or pointers in my C-"like" program then it isn't really C, its a subset. By the way there is a subsetted version of C++ out there, its Embedded C++ which removes the more costly features of the language.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |