Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2007 16:18:10 +0000 (GMT) From: Jan Grant <jan.grant@bristol.ac.uk> To: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com> Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>, Alfred Perlstein <alfred@freebsd.org>, Garance A Drosehn <gad@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: C++ in the kernel Message-ID: <20071031161042.T41569@tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <20071031153248.4395A5B59@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <20071031153248.4395A5B59@mail.bitblocks.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 31 Oct 2007, Bakul Shah wrote: > For example what if you can't gain the lock and want > to do something else? Two, while C++ gives you a way to > solve this problem, it does it in a "clever" way, not an > obvious way. RAII is a very common C++ idiom; that kind of thing'd be obvious to anyone who's mired^Wimmersed in C++ on a regular basis. That's the point here - if this was the language technology already in use, then it'd be obvious, and nobody would think much about it. It's not, so it looks alien, much like any other alternatives that'll get raised along the line of C-plus-stuff look alien. Amongst C++ users with taste (and I claim that they do exist) the natural question that'll then be asked is, since you can already express this idea in C++ why would you adopt a less widespread (or novel) language? jan PS. Paint it green. -- jan grant, ISYS, University of Bristol. http://www.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ There's no convincing English-language argument that this sentence is true.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20071031161042.T41569>