From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 15 13:43:27 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 24E4B16A4CE for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:43:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from razorbill.mail.pas.earthlink.net (razorbill.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.121.248]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F26043F75 for ; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:43:26 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfm4r.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.216.155] helo=mindspring.com) by razorbill.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AL8CS-0000P8-00; Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:43:25 -0800 Message-ID: <3FB69E15.A09E6B18@mindspring.com> Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:43:49 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: abowhill References: <20031114044623.C119838124@mail.blarg.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4b705f10381358b78a844e4a509acbd54350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: C/C++ X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 21:43:27 -0000 abowhill wrote: > Yes. I believe the reason for this is partly historical. But C is > not necessarily a better language for programming userland utilities. > I really don't know about the kernel, but the thought someone trying to > do it in C++ is kind of scarey to contemplate. In 1993, I saw someone working with a C++ kernel at the University of Kentucky. They took their standard FS and implemented ACLs for it in less than one hour by subclassing it. They then spent another 3 hours subclassing their user space tools to complete the full implementation of the feature. Finally, nothing in the kernel other than subclassing the superclass that provided the system call interface really had to change, since all the existing code that dealt with FS's did so through an abstract interface implemented a pure virtual subclass of a pure virtual base class. People who claim C++ isn't an object oriented language just don't know how to use the languages features properly, and need to educate themselves better. -- Terry