" "In fact, in Linux we did try C++ once already, back in 1992. It sucks. Trust me - writing kernel code in C++ is a BLOODY STUPID IDEA.
"The fact is, C++ compilers are not trustworthy. They were even worse in
1992, but some fundamental facts haven't changed: 1) the whole C++ exception handling thing is fundamentally broken. It's _especially_ broken for kernels. 2) any compiler or language that likes to hide things like memory allocations behind your back just isn't a good choice for a kernel. 3) you can write object-oriented code (useful for filesystems etc) in C, _without_ the crap that is C++."
En gros, la gestion de la mémoire se fait dans le dos du programmeur, tandis qu'en C, on sait exactement ce qui est fait.
(thx nicO)
« Il n’y a pas de choix démocratiques contre les Traités européens » - Jean-Claude Junker
[^] # Re: BeOS: Quel dommage...
Posté par Ontologia (site web personnel) . En réponse à la dépêche Haiku a 6 ans. Évalué à 4.
http://kerneltrap.org/node/2067
" "In fact, in Linux we did try C++ once already, back in 1992. It sucks. Trust me - writing kernel code in C++ is a BLOODY STUPID IDEA.
"The fact is, C++ compilers are not trustworthy. They were even worse in
1992, but some fundamental facts haven't changed: 1) the whole C++ exception handling thing is fundamentally broken. It's _especially_ broken for kernels. 2) any compiler or language that likes to hide things like memory allocations behind your back just isn't a good choice for a kernel. 3) you can write object-oriented code (useful for filesystems etc) in C, _without_ the crap that is C++."
En gros, la gestion de la mémoire se fait dans le dos du programmeur, tandis qu'en C, on sait exactement ce qui est fait.
(thx nicO)
« Il n’y a pas de choix démocratiques contre les Traités européens » - Jean-Claude Junker