On Wed, 27 Sep 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > OO is indeed != C++. But since it's a relative if C, it's the most
> > suitable option to use in the kernel.
>
> What's wrong with C itself?
Nothing. What I was saying if you want some OO language in the kernel, C++
is the only option I guess. Mixing languages is a pain..
> > > - A _lot_ of the kernel code/design is inherently object-oriented. So
> > > pardon our collective scepticism when YAC++Advocate comes along waving
> > > the "OO ergo C++" underw^Wflag
> >
> > OO design had nothing to do with OO implementation. I can design a system
> > totally in OO, and implement it in C. Really stupid thing to do I think,
> > but it's possible..
>
> Try it someday. That's how VFS/VM/filesystems are done.
Tell my teacher it's a good idea, he is telling otherwise :)
Igmar
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 30 2000 - 21:00:21 EST