kern/99979: Get Ready for Kernel Module in C++
mwm-keyword-freebsdhackers2.e313df at mired.org
Wed Jul 12 19:54:55 UTC 2006
In <1152732131.57858 at origin.intron.ac>, Intron <mag at intron.ac> typed:
> Mike Meyer wrote:
> > In <20060712141029.35239.qmail at web32707.mail.mud.yahoo.com>, pfgshield-freebsd at yahoo.com typed:
> >> C++ is the de-facto standard for OO: a lot of people know how to use it
> > We're bright enough to know that popularity doesn't imply technical
> > excellence, otherwise we wouldn't be on a FreeBSD list. Having avoided
> > that trap in the choice of platform, doesn't it behoove us to avoid it
> > elswhere?
> I believe that your idea is identical to those of FreeBSD patriarchs.
I believe you don't understand my idea at all.
I'm not saying don't add things to the kernel. Nuts, I'm not even
saying don't add support for writing kernel code in other
languages. I'm saying, don't make that other language C++ just because
it's currently favored by PHBs. There are much better OO languages
(pretty much *any* of them) to choose from. C++ may be the best choice
because of it's roots in C, but there are better OO languages with
roots in C as well. Even taking all that into account, C++ may be the
best choice. But don't simply settle on C++ (or OO, for that matter)
without evaluating the other choices.
> can FreeBSD support NUMA feature of multi-CPU server?
> Can FreeBSD support parallel computing interconnection device?
> Can FreeBSD support PCMCIA GSM/CDMA module useful for outdoor worker?
What does adding support for any and/or all of these have to do
whether we add C++, Eiffel, or nothing to what languages you can
write kernel code in?
Mike Meyer <mwm at mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Network/Unix/Perforce consultant, email for more information.
More information about the freebsd-hackers