DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-07
On Friday, Jul 18, 2003, at 22:08 US/Eastern, Matthew Dillon wrote:
There are lots of reasons to not use C++ in the kernel, one couldOK, I'll clarify.
I'm not a C++ programmer. I even program for PIC microcontrollers
where I can't easily use structures because the target debugger blows
up, but the code is still C++ because I can overload the assignments on
Unix for simulation. So I'm not a C++ zealot.
But simple inheritance and automatic construction/destruction is a big
You could go on for days listing reasons for not using C++ in the
kernel, but (and I'm NOT a C++ zealot and much of my final code is
always pure C) you could go on for days as to why now-a-days you
wouldn't start a major project in pure C.
Anyway, this heated up much faster than I'd hoped. If you were
assigned to develop a kernel using a selected subset of C++ that had to
hook in with a large C code base would you have responded with that
"the mass of the existing code base means we're doing it in C"?
This was an architectural question from a bad but better than most C++
programmer who is primarily a kernel and embedded system programmer who
primarily works in pure old-fashioned C.
probably go on for days listing them. I do not personally like C++
very much, but the biggest reason not to use it is that we are
with over 300 megabytes of C code and that means we're doing it in