On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 10:17:38AM +1200, Ian Collins wrote: > On 08/20/10 09:48 AM, Nicolas Williams wrote: > >And anyways, the temptation to build classes that can be used > >elsewhere becomes rather strong. IMO C++ in the kernel is asking for > >trouble. And C++ in user-land? Same thing: you'll end up wanting to > >turn parts of your application into libraries, and then some other > >developer will want to use those in their C++ app, and then you run into > >the ABI issues all over again. > > There are a couple of simple solutions to that. Either make library > code header only (which is most common for template based code) or > provide CC and gcc libraries, just like we have 32 and 64 bit > versions of other system libraries. Or just stick to one compiler, > like Solaris did before the big gcc build project kicked off.
Or wait for a standard ABI to be formulated and widely adopted. Or don't use C++. Use Java or a JVM-hosted language. Use Python. Use C. Use C#. Use whatever. Anything, anything other than C++. But more than anything: we don't need a language flame war on a ZFS list. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
