Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2007 17:01:02 -0700 (PDT) From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Bruce M Simpson <bms@incunabulum.net> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C++ in the kernel Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.0.9999.0710271656390.2400@qbhto.arg> In-Reply-To: <472317D7.8010406@incunabulum.net> References: <12773.1193480527@critter.freebsd.dk> <472317D7.8010406@incunabulum.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, 27 Oct 2007, Bruce M Simpson wrote:
> I should point out that I am not recommending the habitual use of C++ for
> FreeBSD kernel development,
I have no dog in this hunt, so I'm not commenting on the issue of C++ in
the kernel. I would like to comment however on the meta-issue that it
doesn't really matter what your intentions are, once you open that door
it's open, and it's got to stay open forever.
>From an architectural perspective there would have to be an overwhelming
benefit to doing this that would far exceed the _known_ costs, never mind
adding a few points for the costs we don't know about yet.
> nor am I condoning that we accept C++ code into the tree without any
> *less* consideration than might be the case for contributions in other
> languages (usually C).
Well I think that goes without saying, but for the sake of clarity it's
probably good that you said it anyway. :)
It does raise another issue though, how many kernel developers do we
currently have that are willing/able to judge the quality of C++ code?
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.0.9999.0710271656390.2400>