DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2009-01
Re: C++ in the kernel
Am 05.01.2009 12:33, schrieb Jeremy Chadwick:
> On Sun, Jan 04, 2009 at 05:06:13PM +0100, Michael Neumann wrote:
>> This question bugs me since a quite long time so I write it down...
>> FreeBSD had a long thread about pros and cons of using C++
>> in the kernel here .
>> I'm undecided whether it would be good to use C++ in the DragonFly
> Regardless of what folks decide, I ask that everyone keep one thing in
> mind (which so far in this thread has not been mentioned):
> This is an open-source project. What guarantee is there that all
> members of the project (at the time, or in the future) are going to
> understand all the intricacies and C++ nomenclature?
> An example: I used to partake in a project called suPHP (an Apache
> module + setuid binary wrapper). The author, at one point during a
> minor release, migrated every single piece over to C++. What happened
> afterwards wasn't very pretty.
> Many of the contributing members could no longer contribute, because
> they did not know C++ (I myself fall into this category). There were a
> ton of STL-related problems depending upon what compiler you were using,
> and what version (especially prominent with gcc). Ultimately, the
> number of contributed patches dropped severely, while the number of bug
> reports increased.
I'm no fan of using huge libraries like STL. It's much more complex than
C++ itself. Blame STL and not C++.
I assume kernel hackers to be intelligent enough people to learn C++.
IMHO it's much harder to understand all the dependencies and workings of
the kernel than to learn a language like C++. So I wouldn't count this
as an argument :)