Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
>
> On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > > OO is indeed != C++. But since it's a relative if C, it's the most
> > > suitable option to use in the kernel.
> >
> > What's wrong with C itself?
>
> Nothing. What I was saying if you want some OO language in the kernel, C++
> is the only option I guess. Mixing languages is a pain..
Well, I *like* using // for one line comments, and I *hate* having my
code obfuscated with extra declaration lines just because I can't
declare something in the middle of a block. There is no reason whatever
to hang on to such stupid limitations in C in the mistaken belief that
it somehow keeps it more pure. On the other hand, I hate bloat even
more than I hate those other two things. On the third hand, the first
feature is already in every known C compiler (but you will be pecked to
death by a flock of penguins if you use it) and the second feature
actually represents a simplification of the compiler code, which in case
anyone doesn't know uses the same code generator and most of the same
parser whether you write in C or C++ - so I don't know where all those
arguments about relative efficiency of generated code are coming from.
The way to get C++ into the kernel is to get some of the less invasive
features of C++ into C. This process started a long time ago and will
never stop. Gosh, even if you are a C++ hater you are probably already
using a bagfull of C++ features.
-- Daniel - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:22 EST