On May 6, 12:46 am, "Chris Thomasson" <cris...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Raz" <os...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:715v141f46a5eg638h45f6tu2pem1hohh1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > On Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:54:37 GMT, Erik Wikstr=F6
> >>Obviously his knowledge of C++ is not as good as it should be.
> > As I said, I will find the link again. His knowledge of C++
> > is just fine.
>
>http://www.builderau.com.au/video/soa/Rusty-s-message-to-C-programmer...
>
>http://www.builderau.com.au/video/soa/Why-C-remains-relevant/0,200006...
> > So here is an expert of who believes that you don't need C++ to
> > program low level. C++ brings extra complexity that is not needed.
> [...]
> You are not forced to use "all" the features of C++. One could
> most certainly use C++ in a kernel. However, I personally
> would avoid exceptions and global ctor/dtors like the plague.
> I also would not use the STL, oh well...
I'm not sure what you mean by "global ctor/dtors". You probably
cannot count on dynamic initialization of variables with static
lifetime, for obvious reasons, but there's certainly no reason
not to use (and a lot of reasons for using) user defined
constructors and destructors on local objects.
FWIW: Chorus was written entirely in C++ (except for the
unavoidable little bits of assembler), and that was almost 20
years ago. (Chorus was later bought by Sun, and most of its
features worked their way into Solaris, so I suspect that large
parts of Solaris are written in C++ today.)
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34
|
