Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2006 19:03:33 -0400 From: Mike Meyer <mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df@mired.org> To: rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org, mag@intron.ac Subject: Re: kern/99979: Get Ready for Kernel Module in C++ Message-ID: <17588.11845.706643.154947@bhuda.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <20060711224627.GA93273@megan.kiwi-computer.com> References: <44B2AE69.4080703@elischer.org> <44B2D2DF.2000401@sh.cvut.cz> <86sll8zl9x.fsf@xps.des.no> <courier.44B35DBC.00003F75@intron.ac> <86fyh8zgw8.fsf@xps.des.no> <courier.44B37714.00004B4D@intron.ac> <868xn0z8w9.fsf@xps.des.no> <courier.44B3B9A0.0000609C@intron.ac> <20060711152949.GB1463@merlin.emma.line.org> <1152642474.29859@origin.intron.ac> <20060711224627.GA93273@megan.kiwi-computer.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <20060711224627.GA93273@megan.kiwi-computer.com>, Rick C. Petty <rick-freebsd@kiwi-computer.com> typed: > On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 02:25:21AM +0800, mag@intron.ac wrote: > > Good packages for various APIs are much easier to learn/debug than those > > original APIs. > What makes you say that C++ would provide a good API? Good point. About the only thing C++ has going for it as an OO language is popularity. If the goal is just to provide better API in the kernel, then there are certainly better languages to add. D comes to mind. I'd much rather write D than C++ - but that's got more to do with C++ than D, as it's true for most substitutes for D. But D is OO - done much better than C++ - and has a front end available for GCC. It may not be a good choice, as I haven't looked at it seriously. But I certainly wouldn't start trying to improve the FreeBDS kernel by adding support for a new language without doing so. <mike -- Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?17588.11845.706643.154947>