>
>Just an idea.
>If someone can make a simple C++ module (like the loop device) that can be
>inserted or removed from a running kernel, they have demonstrated that C++
>can, indeed, be useful in the kernel. I think the only usefulness of C++
>in the kernel would be for new things, new file-systems, etc. Certainly
>one would not rewrite anything that already worked. Or would they?
>
>Or is this what this is all about? If so, look very closely. The kernel
>can't even be rewritten in 'C'. It is a mixture of assembly language
>and GNU 'C' language extensions. Even the 'C' language doesn't provide
>all the functionality you require. We need to use additional tools to
>make a kernel. Fortunately GNU provides most of these tools as part of
>`gcc`. However, the result is not 'C'. It is a complete tool-box of 'C'
>and extensions necessary to communicate directly with hardware.
>
>C++ gets you even further from hardware. To make C++ work would require
>a wrapper around everything that talks to hardware. This wrapper
>can't be written in C++. It would therefore require........guess.
>
What wrapper is required??? I've got an old DOS mouse driver written in C++
and it speaks directly to the hardware.
>As I have cautioned before. C++ is just another tool. It is useful to
>know how to use a lot of tools. One is not necessarily better than
>another. When someone invents a replacement for a hammer, I will not
>tear down my house and rebuild it with the new tool. Instead, I might
>use it for repair or building an addition.
>
>Cheers,
>Dick Johnson
> ***** FILE SYSTEM WAS MODIFIED *****
>Penguin : Linux version 2.1.131 on an i686 machine (400.59 BogoMips).
>Warning : It's hard to remain at the trailing edge of technology.
>Wisdom : It's not a Y2K problem. It's a Y2Day problem.
>
>
-
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/