DragonFly kernel List (threaded) for 2009-01
Re: C++ in the kernel
On 2009-01-05 12:33, Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> 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 kernel.
> 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?
> This story is not meant to reflect on C++ the language. I hope readers
> understand the point of the story, and take into considerations the pros
> and cons of said choice.
That is a very important consideration, however I would like to point
out that for kernel development only a very limited subset of the C++
language would be used. I would assume that the most desirable features
would be 1) real classes with member-functions as opposed to structs and
functions that work on them, 2) inheritance, 3) constructors/
destructors, and 4) templates, which are quite easy to understand.
Of course, to be honest I don't see C++ in the kernel any time soon (or
ever) since I expect that just the work on getting the infrastructure in
place would be quite high (getting new to work as it should, probably
some compiler and linker issues, etc.).