On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 10:40:48PM +0100, bert hubert wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 05, 2000 at 01:45:18PM -0500, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> > Hmm.. Kernel code written in C++..
> > You people are nuts. :)
>
> Nobody benefits from having such a closed mind. While I don't wish to imply
> that C++ is 'ready' for general use in the kernel, there is a useful subset
> of C++ that might one day be.
I didn't mean it that way. I though it was interesting in light of the
earlier flame war. Esp considering they appear to be using virtual
functions.
The 'you people are nuts. :)' was meant as a positive statement.
Don't you know? All breakthroughs come from crazy people. :)
> Oh, and please let us not launch another huge discussion about this subject.
> I just want to state that having a closed mind is not going to help us.
Their code speaks for itself. It outperforms the Linux code and is more
flexible.
Although, I tend to see that as a case for additional optimization of the
current Linux code... C++ can be a very useful development tool with the
potential to increase modularity and simplify development. However,
run-time abstraction will always be a performance loss.
I was happy to see the prior flame war end with 'Let the code speak', I only
brought this up here to draw some attention to Click from a C++ in the kernel
prospective, i.e. They are using C++ in the kernel (without extensive kernel
-
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 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:17 EST