Re: C++ and the kernel

["Dr. David Alan Gilbert" <gilbertd@treblig.org>]

* Richard B. Johnson (root@chaos.analogic.com) wrote:
> 
> I would like to rewrite the kernel in FORTRAN because this was
> one of the first languages I learned.
> 
> Seriously, the kernel MUST be written in a procedural language.
> It is the mechanism by which something is accomplished that defines
> an operating system kernel.
> 
> C++ is an object-oriented language, in fact the opposite of a
> procedural language. It is not suitable.

Bollox!

There are many places in the kernel that are actually very OO - look at
filesystems for example. The super_operations sturcture is in effect a
virtual function table.

Sure making every file an object is probably OTT; but large scale things
like a filesystem, a network device or the like probably actually fit
very well.

Sure, there are a lot of features of C++ to stay clear of - exception
handling probably being one of them, and I wouldn't let the C++ stuff
anywhere near the memory management code.

Point being that it is a case of using the write tool for the job.  C++
douesn't add any extra overhead just by calling it C++ and not using any
of the features; careful use of the features where appropriate does no
harm and might actually make the code cleaner, and possibly more
efficient.

I will agree going head in and just throwing C++ at it is a bad thing.

Dave

 ---------------- Have a happy GNU millennium! ----------------------   
/ Dr. David Alan Gilbert    | Running GNU/Linux on Alpha,68K| Happy  \ 
\ gro.gilbert @ treblig.org | MIPS,x86,ARM, SPARC and HP-PA | In Hex /
 \ _________________________|_____ http://www.treblig.org   |_______/