From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Oct 30 05:58:54 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 C2A9F16A418 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:58:54 +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 9E8EE13C4B5 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2007 05:58:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bright@elvis.mu.org) Received: by elvis.mu.org (Postfix, from userid 1192) id 850611A4D84; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:58:40 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 22:58:40 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Garance A Drosehn Message-ID: <20071030055840.GS33488@elvis.mu.org> References: <23408.1193557610@critter.freebsd.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.3i Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , 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 05:58:54 -0000 * Garance A Drosehn [071029 22:50] wrote: > At 7:46 AM +0000 10/28/07, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >In message <20071028074310.233895B3E@mail.bitblocks.com>, Bakul Shah > >writes: > > > >> It will be the proverbial camel's nose in the tent. A subset > >> of C++ is attractive for kernel work but it will be hard to > >> hold the line at that. > > > >That's one of my main arguments why we should "own the language" we > >use. > > > >The other main argument is that we can then teach the language to > >do the things we need it to do. > > This seems like a good idea to me, as long as the language we come > up with is just some easy-to-follow additions to the C language. (I > believe that has always been your intention, but I just thought it > would be good to say it again). 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. > > 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++. > > I've been meaning to look into D, but I don't have any experience > with programming in D, so I don't know if that would work as a > basis of a kernel-programming language. (Not that we'd use the > official D language, either. Just that it might be a source for > ideas of whatever we want to do) I think the right thing to do here is to identify the things we need added to C++ and propose those to the standards. If they are reasonable and useful then it should be something that passes and we will wind up with something the industry uses rather than some graduate project while Linux eclipses us even further because they took something that worked. -- - Alfred Perlstein