From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 30 23:56:22 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23E2316A418 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:56:22 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: from elvis.mu.org (elvis.mu.org [192.203.228.196]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1616A13C4A3 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:56:21 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 6F3D11A4D81; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:00:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 16:00:13 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Maciej Sobczak Message-ID: <20071030230013.GB33488@elvis.mu.org> References: <23408.1193557610@critter.freebsd.dk> <20071030055840.GS33488@elvis.mu.org> <47274A29.9040801@msobczak.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <47274A29.9040801@msobczak.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: C++ in the kernel X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 23:56:22 -0000 * Maciej Sobczak [071030 15:55] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > >I think the right thing to do here is to identify the things we > >need added to C++ and propose those to the standards. > > I think you got it completely backwards. > > First a bit of context - the C++ standard committee is already in deep > sht^H^H^Hwork to get the current proposals straight and ship the new > standard revision, which is already late. No new proposals are accepted, > unless they save the world. > Considering the usual rythm of standardization process, the next chance > to add anything to C++ will be at the end of the next decade. FreeBSD > might be already dead till that time with Linux overtaking whatever is > left from the community. > > You should reverse your thinking and instead ask yourself: what parts > and elements of *current* C++ might be useful for kernel development? > If you identify them you can actually benefit from adapting them. > If not, abandon the idea altogether and continue the current way. > If you try to do anything else, you will only waste resources. I agree that we can use what's currently in C++, additional things we can hack in ourselves and/or propose in the meanwhile. > Actually, C++ is being used in embedded and real-time systems as well as > for signal processing, so apparently there *are* some communities that > already gained experience with constrained use of the language. > Presumably some of the constraints that these people face are also valid > in the kernel world, and presumably some of the solutions might be > successfully reused. > Don't reinvent! Yes. -- - Alfred Perlstein