From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 31 01:16:55 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 F2B3E16A417 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:16:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp7.server.rpi.edu (smtp7.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.227]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8A7813C465 for ; Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:16:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp7.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l9V1GLYK003534 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:16:22 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <47274A29.9040801@msobczak.com> References: <23408.1193557610@critter.freebsd.dk> <20071030055840.GS33488@elvis.mu.org> <47274A29.9040801@msobczak.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 21:16:20 -0400 To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org From: Garance A Drosehn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam scanning disabled X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 128.113.2.227 Cc: 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: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 01:16:56 -0000 At 4:13 PM +0100 10/30/07, Maciej Sobczak wrote: >Alfred Perlstein wrote: > >(I reply also to some previous mail which I didn't get from the list.) Which came from me... I probably should have sent it to the list, but at the time it seemed something was haywire with my mail. An earlier message I had sent to the list didn't show up for quite a long time. >>>That way we don't get caught up in >>>problems when, say, the ABI's for the official C++ language are >>>changed, and we don't want to make major ABI changes in the middle >>>of a STABLE branch. > >Do you often change the compiler in the middle of a STABLE branch? >If not, then why are you worried about changes in the language? >They will not magically propagate to the compiler. > >Pick the compiler version and stick to it for the whole branch lifetime. Yes. Just Like Perl. What harm harm can possibly come to sticking with Perl4 in a stable branch? And certainly we've seen major incompatible changes to C++ at the *ABI-level* in the past. >>>It might be prudent to say we're building a new language patterned >>>on something *other* than C++, just to make it clear that we won't >>>be tied to whatever developments coem up in the world of C++. > >Why are you worried about developments that can come up? >Do you try to protect yourself from new developments that >can come up in C as well? You don't own neither C++, nor C. Yes, I know we don't own C++. That was my whole point. It seems to me that PHK wants to stick with be very careful with what we introduce to kernel-level programming, and that seems quite reasonable and prudent, IMO. I *like* playing with a wide variety of languages when it comes to user-level applications, but I can see that we need tighter control when it comes to the kernel. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = drosehn@rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA