From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 12 02:59:02 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E5BD16A4E9 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:59:02 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from nitro@263.net) Received: from smtp.263.net (263.net.cn [211.150.96.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9C1D743D5F for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:58:59 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nitro@263.net) Received: from origin.intron.ac (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.263.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7894FF193D for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:59:00 +0800 (CST) X-KSVirus-check: 0 References: <1152540567.99616@origin.intron.ac> <44B2AE69.4080703@elischer.org> <44B2D2DF.2000401@sh.cvut.cz> <20060711.101403.-928138940.imp@bsdimp.com> <1152644432.30488@origin.intron.ac> <20060711220348.X4444@mail.tacorp.net> In-Reply-To: <20060711220348.X4444@mail.tacorp.net> From: mag@intron.ac To: Jason Slagle Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:57:09 +0800 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <1152673136.40289@origin.intron.ac> X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 03:08:29 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: kern/99979: Get Ready for Kernel Module in C++ X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 02:59:02 -0000 Jason Slagle wrote: > On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, mag@intron.ac wrote: > >> I would repeat several sentences in my last reply. >> Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET >> Framework than direct Windows API? Why is gtkmm framework created for >> GTK+? Would you write a X11 application with original X11 API, without QT >> or other X11 toolkit? I believe the answer is that all programmers are >> human begins, not >> machines. Human programmer would reduce brainwork, even if an API >> package/wrapper slightly reduces running efficiency. > > And this is why office 2003 takes longer to load on a 2.4ghz machine then > office 97 did on a 233. > > I don't think that is a comparison you can safely make and retain any > creditability. > > If you want to keep the changes you made in a local tree or a p4 tree or > whatever, and show us we're all wrong when you're done, thats fine. But > expecting committers to drop your code into the tree for such a purpose is > silly. > > Jason > > > -- > Jason Slagle > /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign . > X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail . > / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail . > > > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers > To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-hackers-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" Why don't you say that Office 2003 is more powerful than Office 97? We are discussing C++ and other object-oriented encapsulation for kernel module here. If you want to complain that your Office 2003 is slower than Office 97, please leave your grouse for Microsoft technical support staff. You even haven't known what we are discussing and what I would commit. Actually my patches has little relationship to C++. Read previous mails first before your great speech here! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ From Beijing, China