> Please don't confuse object oriented with C++. Decent programmers can
write
> object oriented assembler, fortran or even cobol (although they normally
leave
> in the latter case). Linux is heavily object oriented but without using a
> glorified pre-processor on it
I don't feel Linux is *so* object oriented.
Apart from this C++ is no more just a
pre-processor. Of course a C and ASM
hacker could feel in this way, but it's not
true; C++ could be used as an improved-C
or as a full-featured OO-language. Using
C or ASM or another language in an OO
way without a specific support for this could
lead to more complications that it's worth (i.e.
you could program as you have inheritance
without having a keyword to do it, but it's
very difficoult to keep the code clean).
Looking at the Linux source tree, I don't
think Linux is OO. But I personally
don't feel it as a limitation per se. WinNT
is (maybe?) OO. What's the result? The
only things that count, at the end, are the
results. Linux could be not OO, but the
sources are (quite) always clean and
understandable.
Bye
Marco
-
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/