Re: C++ pushback

[Sam Ravnborg]

On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 11:37:05PM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> >
> >I agree, it would be a bad idea to compile the existing C code by g+ 
> >+.  The good idea is to be able to produce new C++ modules etc.
> 
> No, this is a reason why C++ modules are _not_ a good idea.  If you  
> could write the module in C or C++, but in C++ it compiled 100-200%  
> slower, then you would write it in C.
The original issue was the possibility to add support for C++
solely to support an existing implementation of a filesystem.
Not to rewrite the kernel in C++, neither to encourage the use of C++.
And with this in mind the figures above does not matter.

Likewise does neiter of the many arguments in this thread.
Now if the C++ fans could present what is needed to actually support
building a module in C++ instead of arguing.....

	Sam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/