At 4:13 PM +0100 10/30/07, Maciej Sobczak wrote:
>Alfred Perlstein wrote:
>(I reply also to some previous mail which I didn't get from the list.)

Which came from me... I probably should have sent it to the list,
but at the time it seemed something was haywire with my mail. An
earlier message I had sent to the list didn't show up for quite a
long time.

>>>That way we don't get caught up in
>>>problems when, say, the ABI's for the official C++ language are
>>>changed, and we don't want to make major ABI changes in the middle
>>>of a STABLE branch.

>Do you often change the compiler in the middle of a STABLE branch?
>If not, then why are you worried about changes in the language?
>They will not magically propagate to the compiler.
>Pick the compiler version and stick to it for the whole branch lifetime.

Yes. Just Like Perl. What harm harm can possibly come to sticking
with Perl4 in a stable branch? And certainly we've seen major
incompatible changes to C++ at the *ABI-level* in the past.

>>>It might be prudent to say we're building a new language patterned
>>>on something *other* than C++, just to make it clear that we won't
>>>be tied to whatever developments coem up in the world of C++.

>Why are you worried about developments that can come up?
>Do you try to protect yourself from new developments that
>can come up in C as well? You don't own neither C++, nor C.

Yes, I know we don't own C++. That was my whole point. It seems
to me that PHK wants to stick with be very careful with what we
introduce to kernel-level programming, and that seems quite
reasonable and prudent, IMO.

I *like* playing with a wide variety of languages when it comes
to user-level applications, but I can see that we need tighter
control when it comes to the kernel.

Garance Alistair Drosehn =
Senior Systems Programmer or
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA
_______________________________________________ mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to ""