From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jul 12 15:14:56 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 8D6CE16A4DE for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:14:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from babkin@verizon.net) Received: from vms044pub.verizon.net (vms044pub.verizon.net [206.46.252.44]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB9A43D46 for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 15:14:56 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from babkin@verizon.net) Received: from vms170.mailsrvcs.net ([192.168.1.3]) by vms044.mailsrvcs.net (Sun Java System Messaging Server 6.2-4.02 (built Sep 9 2005)) with ESMTPA id <0J2A004TSQC81L0D@vms044.mailsrvcs.net> for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:14:32 -0500 (CDT) Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:14:31 -0500 (CDT) From: Sergey Babkin To: mag@intron.ac, Jason Slagle Message-id: <14577791.354951152717272061.JavaMail.root@vms170.mailsrvcs.net> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 16:40:25 +0000 Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Re: kern/99979: Get Ready for Kernel Module in C++ X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: babkin@users.sf.net 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 15:14:56 -0000 >From: mag@intron.ac >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. >> >Why don't you say that Office 2003 is more powerful than Office 97? Hm, is it? I've never noticed, I guess I just don't have the need for the more powerful parts of it. >You even haven't known what we are discussing and what I would commit. >Actually my patches has little relationship to C++. What many C++ programmers don't realize is that lots of the C++ functionality (inheritance etc.) can be done in C almost as good and easy (and sometimes just as good and easy). And it's done, and people have pointed it out. There are some things in C++ that really are a great advantage over C (STL, for an easy example) but these tend to be pretty heavyweight to put them into the kernel. Then again, there are things in C++ that are very convenient and lightweight. One of them would be the automatic calling of destructors when exiting a block. Makes the tracking of the locks much easier. I'm not so sure that the exceptions get into this category. -SB