Re: Compiling C++ modules

[Jakob Oestergaard <jakob@unthought.net>]

On Tue, Apr 25, 2006 at 12:03:46AM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >There are a few anti C++ bigots around too, but the kernel choice of C
> >was based both on rational choices and experimentation early on with the
> >C++ compiler.
> >  
> Times have changed, though. The C++ compiler is much better now, and the 
> recent slew of error handling bugs shows that C is a very unsafe language.
> 
> I think it's easy to show that the equivalent C++ code would be shorter, 
> faster, and safer.

Please read:
 http://unthought.net/c++/c_vs_c++.html

This explains, in simple terms, why you are just as right as you are
wrong.

Snippet:
-------------
Note, that I am not arguing that everything is rewritten in C++. There
are many large projects out there which are written in C - I do not
believe that it is a good idea to just "convert" them to C++. C++ allows
for cleaner solutions than C does, for a great many problems. Doing a
minimal conversion of a solution which is "as clean as it gets" in C, to
C++, would convert "good C" code into "poor C++". That is not a change
to the better!
-------------

And let's forget about this thread then please.

-- 

 / jakob

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/