"James Kanze" <james.kanze@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:930a9325-6d39-4c58-be22-d21cd8545e9c@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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 Wikströ
> > >>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.
Yeah, your right. However, I did not use them out of habit back when I was
working on a toy x86 kernel implementation. Some objects may need to
interface with assembly language. I personally find that using POD makes
can
make that process a bit easier...
> 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.)
Indeed.
|
