kern/99979: Get Ready for Kernel Module in C++

[Sergey Babkin]

>From: mag at intron.ac

>Jason Slagle wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 12 Jul 2006, mag at intron.ac wrote:
>> 
>>> I would repeat several sentences in my last reply.
>>> Why would people write Windows application with rather MFC/ATL/.NET 
>>> Framework than direct Windows API? Why is gtkmm framework created for 
>>> GTK+? Would you write a X11 application with original X11 API, without QT 
>>> or other X11 toolkit? I believe the answer is that all programmers are 
>>> human begins, not
>>> machines. Human programmer would reduce brainwork, even if an API
>>> package/wrapper slightly reduces running efficiency.
>> 
>> And this is why office 2003 takes longer to load on a 2.4ghz machine then 
>> office 97 did on a 233.
>> 
>Why don't you say that Office 2003 is more powerful than Office 97?

Hm, is it? I've never noticed, I guess I just don't
have the need for the more powerful parts of it.

>You even haven't known what we are discussing and what I would commit.
>Actually my patches has little relationship to C++.

What many C++ programmers don't realize is that
lots of the C++ functionality (inheritance etc.)
can be done in C almost as good and easy (and 
sometimes just as good and easy). And it's done, and 
people have pointed it out.

There are some things in C++ that really are a great
advantage over C (STL, for an easy example) but these
tend to be pretty heavyweight to put them into the
kernel.

Then again, there are things in C++ that are very
convenient and lightweight. One of them would be
the automatic calling of destructors when exiting 
a block. Makes the tracking of the locks much easier.
I'm not so sure that the exceptions get into this 
category.

-SB