C/C++

[Terry Lambert]

abowhill wrote:
> Yes. I believe the reason for this is partly historical. But C is
> not necessarily a better language for programming userland utilities.
> I really don't know about the kernel, but the thought someone trying to
> do it in C++ is kind of scarey to contemplate.

In 1993, I saw someone working with a C++ kernel at the University
of Kentucky.

They took their standard FS and implemented ACLs for it in less
than one hour by subclassing it.

They then spent another 3 hours subclassing their user space tools
to complete the full implementation of the feature.

Finally, nothing in the kernel other than subclassing the
superclass that provided the system call interface really had to
change, since all the existing code that dealt with FS's did so
through an abstract interface implemented a pure virtual subclass
of a pure virtual base class.

People who claim C++ isn't an object oriented language just don't
know how to use the languages features properly, and need to
educate themselves better.

-- Terry