From: "la deng" <ladeng.mimi@gmail.com>
To: "WANG Cong" <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>,
"la deng" <ladeng.mimi@gmail.com>,
torvalds@linux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: c 's OOP in VFS vs c++'s OOP
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 19:00:15 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <99e4df080705040400p66819117sec7f7d88d3794871@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070504101129.GA5482@localhost.localdomain>
On 5/4/07, WANG Cong <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 04, 2007 at 04:32:27PM +0800, la deng wrote:
> >reference to the c++'s father's interview
> >
> >http://www.artima.com/intv/abstreffi.html
> >
> >fortran and c++ can achive good performance for they can abstract in
> >higher level and their compiler can think in higher level to avoid
> >the cache miss (like in the array vs vector )or to achive the "no
> >code" Optimization
> >
>
> Well, it seems
that you are a zealot of OOP. I admit OOP is really a good idea and a
good abstraction. And that's the reason why we borrow it in. Of
course, OOP in C is not true OOP. (Maybe we can call it pseudo-OOP.)
>
> >The vfs using c to OOP but c compiler can't have the high level
> >Intelligence as the c++ or fortran's compiler to help at the high
> >level Optimization
> >
>
> We just borrow the OOP ideas from OOP languages, like C++/Java/Python, but we can't use any of them. The reasons can be summarized as the following:
>
> 1. Those languages, like C++, hide many things behind you. But kernel needs to know those things.
> 2. Those languages can't be (well) mixed with assembly.
> 3. Speed is crucial for kernel, while those languages can't surpass C.
>
> >
> >one benchmark showed the c insert in the array will slow by speed of 1/17
>
> What benchmark? If your algorithm is well designed, C can't be more slowly.
>
> >
> >
> >Then ,what's the power of c OOP vs c++ with the compiler's
> >Intelligence in OOP?or maybe the c compiler have Outdated?
> >
>
> C compiler is _not_ out of date, of course. Why we choose OOP in C is explained above.
>
> In a word, we choose OOP because it's a good idea like you wanna show us, we prefer C because of it's low-levelness and speed.
>
> >any input will be appreciated.
>
> Regard!
>
> WANG Cong
>
>
well,I mean when use c as a higher level assembly maybe it a good
choose compare to assembly.
but,as below
http://www.research.att.com/~bs/esc99.html
when we use c to do the OOP ,for the c compiler has no the globe
Analysis .then the cache miss(for example : insert a array,c compiler
maybe put the data into memory and then take it again for no globe
Analysis ) and the data not Optimi for in the register and c can't
control register like lisp or c++ with some compiler glob control and
Analysis,giveing c the penalty of 1/17 speed as normal
What's you think about it?
Thanks
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-05-04 11:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-05-04 8:32 c 's OOP in VFS vs c++'s OOP la deng
[not found] ` <20070504101129.GA5482@localhost.localdomain>
2007-05-04 11:00 ` la deng [this message]
2007-05-04 11:40 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-04 12:30 ` WANG Cong
2007-05-04 13:53 ` la deng
2007-05-04 14:15 ` Jan Engelhardt
2007-05-05 6:37 ` la deng
2007-05-04 15:27 ` WANG Cong
2007-05-05 7:29 ` la deng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=99e4df080705040400p66819117sec7f7d88d3794871@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ladeng.mimi@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox