C++ in the kernel

[Bruce M Simpson]

Hi Poul,

Thanks for the feedback.

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> I think it would be nice to augment C in the kernel, but C++ would
> not be the correct augmentation for this purpose.
>   

I should point out that I am not recommending the habitual use of C++ 
for FreeBSD kernel development, nor am I condoning that we accept C++ 
code into the tree without any *less* consideration than might be the 
case for contributions in other languages (usually C).

I reiterate: as per my message to Alfred, C++ makes it very easy to 
write bad code, but despite this, it is a very powerful tool when 
wielded properly.

My experiences in working with C++ have been very positive, although 
limited because I have been very choosy about the subset of the 
developers, and C++ code, that happen to exist in the world...

> Instead of repeating myself, I'll just refer to my previous ramblings
> on the subject and the SoC correspondence on the 'K' language
> experiments.
>   

I could not find any reference to this discussion in a mailing list 
search. I did read the article at: http://wiki.freebsd.org/K. It sounds 
like a new and interesting approach to a C-like language (* see footnote).

However, that was not the original topic of my thread, which is to gauge 
interest for C++ runtime support in FreeBSD and if anyone is already 
doing this.

C++ is happening *now*, in other environments, it is more relevant to 
what people are doing in the wider world than K, so I don't see how K is 
analagous to C++, it would be most helpful if your discussion on this 
issue were more easily available.

The ultimate litmus test is how it gets used and if it's a qualitative, 
and quantitative, improvement.

regards,
BMS

(*) It sounds like K reinvents Microsoft's Structured Exception Handling 
(SEH). GCC have had a Google SoC student working on porting SEH to GCC, 
I contacted their SoC mentor this week to try to find out what the 
status of that code is.