From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Oct 29 21:49:47 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29E5B16A419 for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:49:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtp5.server.rpi.edu (smtp5.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.225]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0EF313C4BE for ; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:49:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gad@FreeBSD.org) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp5.server.rpi.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id l9TKYIFG014352; Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:34:20 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <23408.1193557610@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <23408.1193557610@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:34:17 -0400 To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" , Bakul Shah From: Garance A Drosehn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed" X-RPI-SA-Score: undef - spam scanning disabled X-CanItPRO-Stream: default X-Canit-Stats-ID: Bayes signature not available X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . roaringpenguin . com) on 128.113.2.225 Cc: freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: C++ in the kernel X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 21:49:47 -0000 At 7:46 AM +0000 10/28/07, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: >In message <20071028074310.233895B3E@mail.bitblocks.com>, Bakul Shah writes: > >> It will be the proverbial camel's nose in the tent. A subset >> of C++ is attractive for kernel work but it will be hard to >> hold the line at that. > >That's one of my main arguments why we should "own the language" we >use. > >The other main argument is that we can then teach the language to >do the things we need it to do. This seems like a good idea to me, as long as the language we come up with is just some easy-to-follow additions to the C language. (I believe that has always been your intention, but I just thought it would be good to say it again). 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. 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++. I've been meaning to look into D, but I don't have any experience with programming in D, so I don't know if that would work as a basis of a kernel-programming language. (Not that we'd use the official D language, either. Just that it might be a source for ideas of whatever we want to do) -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = drosehn@rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@FreeBSD.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute; Troy, NY; USA