Re: C++ in the kernel

At 7:46 AM +0000 10/28/07, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message <20071028074310.233895B3E@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, 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)

--
Garance Alistair Drosehn = drosehn@xxxxxxx
Senior Systems Programmer or gad@xxxxxxxxxxx
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA
_______________________________________________
freebsd-arch@xxxxxxxxxxx mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-arch
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-arch-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx"

Relevant Pages