On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Jeff V. Merkey wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Oct 2000, Generic Kernel Geek wrote:
> >
> > C++ sucks for kernel dev, because I say it does.
the original-original post was somebody asking why not make the kernel headers
C++ friendly.
all he wanted was the c++ reserved words removed from / kept out of the headers.
that way, if they for some reason want to write, or maybe proto a MODULE in c++
they could. no reference to putting C++ in the kernel, just writing a module
in it. to me this means that the MODULE would have to be linked w/ libg++
_NOT_ the kernel.
only his module and its users and would have to pay this price.
no need for a flame war, all that needed to be said was "sorry, we dont
currently support it and I have too much work already, but if you want to
develop a patch..."
instead this turned into a "you suck for even thinking it" flamewar.
p.s. there are lots of examples of kernels written mainly in c++ that work
quite nicely, and most of them are LESS than 7 years old. see the OSF's MK++
(a C++ black box Mach re-implementation), ECOS, BEOS (all except the core of
the kernel) etc etc...
--
/*------------------------------------------------**
** Mark Salisbury | [EMAIL PROTECTED] **
**------------------------------------------------**
** "WYGIWYD - What You Get Is What You Deserve" **
**------------------------------------------------*/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
