why only C?
mohit89mlnc at gmail.com
Mon Apr 4 05:04:01 EDT 2011
On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at
> On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 00:47 +0530, mohit verma wrote: [....]
> > As far as i can decipher , we impose Object oriented paradigm in
> > kernel space using C : like using gates to allow only one way entry
> > and binding functions to structures in a OOP fashion and trying to
> > make them private to that structure only , encapsulation of one
> > struct into another structure (and lots of features ) and itself lots
> > of kernel subsystem supports like driver interface and blah blah
> > behaving like **objects** .......
> OOP is a design issue independent of the used programming language. So
> you actually *can* do OOP with C (or assembler or ....) and I have seen
> C++ programs which do not employ the ideas behind OOP.
> > why dont we use some fully OOPs supportive language like JAVA or
> > partial supportive language like C++ to construct Linux Kernel????
> What does it buy and what does it cost?
> For - or more against - Java: You really do not want an OS to use an
> interpreted "language". That kills performance. And the more interesting
> challenge is to implement hardware IRQ handlers in Java.
> C++ has lots of features which make it awkward to use. For starters,
> think about the fact that Java does not have multiple inheritance.
> > I don't think that performance is the main reason behind all this .
> > Is it??
> Did you google for it and read the links etc.?
> You will find much more on this question.
the above two responses can easily describe : **why** did i post this mail
And literally , i had googled it before posting to this list.
C++ is not that much stupid now a days if we compare it to old (1992)
days...... but still C??
> Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd at petrovitsch.priv.at
> LUGA : http://www.luga.at
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Kernelnewbies