Messages in this thread | | | From | "Linux Kernel Developer" <> | Subject | Re: [Criticism] On the discussion about C++ modules | Date | Sun, 22 Oct 2000 06:42:19 -0400 |
| |
Wasn't the original complaint that the kernel headers use C++ keyword and thus prevent the writing of, at least some, modules in C++. I have written C++ code before that was as least as fast as comparable C code and more efficient in some ways. Whether this could be or not be reproduced in kernel code I do not know. So far I have done my kernel programming in C. However even if I or other programmers would like to give this a try it is my understanding we cannot because of the header situation. I think it is unfair to attack C++ kernel code that is unable to come into existence, at least without jumping through a bunch of hoops, due to external influences (i.e. the incompatible headers).
On a separate note. Isn't one of the philosophies behind Linux the idea of freedom. If people wish to try and program their modules in C++ for whatever reason, be it porting from existing code or to object orient their code, should they be free to do so. If the header situation is true, which I am not sure of since I have not tried to do C++ programming in kernel code, then people aren't free to write modules however they wished. Seeing as fixing the headers should be rather trivial and probably is the right thing to do anyway (using existing language keywords is a bad idea) I do not see why this same flame war must erupt every time the header situation is brought up. Its not as if C++ code would all of the sudden popup in the kernel core forcing everybody to use C++. At best a driver here and there might start using it and its continual usage would depend on if its implementation is successful or not. And those drivers themselves are extremely likely to be self-contained thus not affecting anybody else's kernel code.
> If C++ really is that good for kernel modules, I'd like to > see some code that proves it can be done without too much > of a performance hit (or without a performance hit at all?). > > Sending 500 rants to the kernel list isn't even close to > being productive. Sending 1 patch is... > > regards, > > Rik > -- > "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" > -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 > > http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ > > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ >
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |