This is a discussion on Re: C++ in the kernel - FreeBSD ; * Maciej Sobczak [071030 15:55] wrote: > Alfred Perlstein wrote: > > >I think the right thing to do here is to identify the things we > >need added to C++ and propose those to the standards. > > I ...
* Maciej Sobczak
[071030 15:55] wrote:
> Alfred Perlstein wrote:
> >I think the right thing to do here is to identify the things we
> >need added to C++ and propose those to the standards.
> I think you got it completely backwards.
> First a bit of context - the C++ standard committee is already in deep
> sht^H^H^Hwork to get the current proposals straight and ship the new
> standard revision, which is already late. No new proposals are accepted,
> unless they save the world.
> Considering the usual rythm of standardization process, the next chance
> to add anything to C++ will be at the end of the next decade. FreeBSD
> might be already dead till that time with Linux overtaking whatever is
> left from the community.
> You should reverse your thinking and instead ask yourself: what parts
> and elements of *current* C++ might be useful for kernel development?
> If you identify them you can actually benefit from adapting them.
> If not, abandon the idea altogether and continue the current way.
> If you try to do anything else, you will only waste resources.
I agree that we can use what's currently in C++, additional things
we can hack in ourselves and/or propose in the meanwhile.
> Actually, C++ is being used in embedded and real-time systems as well as
> for signal processing, so apparently there *are* some communities that
> already gained experience with constrained use of the language.
> Presumably some of the constraints that these people face are also valid
> in the kernel world, and presumably some of the solutions might be
> successfully reused.
> Don't reinvent!
- Alfred Perlstein
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "firstname.lastname@example.org"