From owner-freebsd-questions Tue Aug 15 11: 2:52 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from fw.wintelcom.net (ns1.wintelcom.net [209.1.153.20]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 547AD37BE4C for ; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:02:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from bright@fw.wintelcom.net) Received: (from bright@localhost) by fw.wintelcom.net (8.10.0/8.10.0) id e7FI2ig03291; Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:02:44 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2000 11:02:44 -0700 From: Alfred Perlstein To: Kenneth Wayne Culver Cc: t g , questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: why c? Message-ID: <20000815110244.B4854@fw.wintelcom.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.4i In-Reply-To: ; from culverk@wam.umd.edu on Tue, Aug 15, 2000 at 01:46:53PM -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > On Tue, 15 Aug 2000, t g wrote: > > > i've been trying to learn unix off and on for a while now, and i finally > > trashed windoze ;-) now i'm running freebsd 4.0-release (only... no more > > windows at all!). > > > > anyway, when i was in college (not to long ago) i took a number of > > programming classes and all but one of them used c++. so, my question is, > > why is everything written in c? is it simply because unix was written > > before c++, or is c better for an os? > > > > i'm also interested in a good book on programming operating system if anyone > > has a recommendation (doesn't have to be geared toward unix). > > * Kenneth Wayne Culver [000815 10:50] wrote: > I know that one reason that UNIX is still mostly C is because C binaries > are a lot smaller and faster. Well as far as the OS itself (kernel) afaik a lot of C++'s 'features' require support that's not present in the kernel for such things as exceptions and templates you have too many side-effects going on that cause problems. -Alfred To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message