Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:43:49 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: abowhill <abowhill@blarg.net> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C/C++ Message-ID: <3FB69E15.A09E6B18@mindspring.com> References: <20031114044623.C119838124@mail.blarg.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
abowhill wrote: > Yes. I believe the reason for this is partly historical. But C is > not necessarily a better language for programming userland utilities. > I really don't know about the kernel, but the thought someone trying to > do it in C++ is kind of scarey to contemplate. In 1993, I saw someone working with a C++ kernel at the University of Kentucky. They took their standard FS and implemented ACLs for it in less than one hour by subclassing it. They then spent another 3 hours subclassing their user space tools to complete the full implementation of the feature. Finally, nothing in the kernel other than subclassing the superclass that provided the system call interface really had to change, since all the existing code that dealt with FS's did so through an abstract interface implemented a pure virtual subclass of a pure virtual base class. People who claim C++ isn't an object oriented language just don't know how to use the languages features properly, and need to educate themselves better. -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3FB69E15.A09E6B18>