DragonFly BSD
DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2003-07
[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: C++


From: Peter Dufault <dufault@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:29:33 -0400


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 could
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 working
with over 300 megabytes of C code and that means we're doing it in C.


OK, 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 win.

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.

Peter













[Date Prev][Date Next]  [Thread Prev][Thread Next]  [Date Index][Thread Index]