>>>>> "Andrew" == Andrew Morton <andrewm@uow.edu.au> writes:
Andrew> g++ -c -O -fno-exceptions t.cc size t.o text data bss dec hex
Andrew> filename 21 0 0 21 15 t.o
Andrew> This is a red herring. All of it.
Not at all
>> "Linux is free software"
Andrew> Yup. And one principle of Free software is "don't tell other
Andrew> people what to do".
Andrew> I'm sorry, Victor but this one gets under my skin. If people
Andrew> want to write kernel code in C++ well good for them. All it
Andrew> requires of the kernel developers is to take the darn C++
Andrew> keywords out of the headers. About an hour's work for someone
Andrew> who has a license for /bin/vi.
No friggin way. Point here is that if eople are given the option to
write kernel code in C++ then they *will* do it ant worse someone
*will* start using thew broken parts of C++ in the kernel. So what
happens, someone starts doing that and we start getting bug reports on
this ... now who is to maintain all this crap? Is it reasonable to
waste the kernel developers' time on problem reports with people not
understanding what they are doing with C++? It's like having to deal
with problem reports on people compiling their kernels with things
like pgcc just a lot worse.
True one can write a kernel module in C++ *if* you're really careful,
but major chunk of programmers out there are not. The only way to
avoid this huge can of worms is to totally deprecate it.
Andrew> This is an ideological language war masquerading as a
Andrew> technical and supportability issue.
No it's an issue of maintainabillity raised by the people who have
been maintaining the bulk of the code for years.
Jes
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jul 15 2000 - 21:00:17 EST