weeding out c++ keywords from sys/sys

[Bruce Simpson]

Gary Jennejohn wrote:
...
> It isn't exactly confidence building that all the links on this page
> are invalid.
>   

I was able to access all of the links on that page without problems from 
archive.org.
The original content has moved, this seems to be due to a 
re-organisation within the university concerned.
Can you mention exactly which links were invalid for you?

> This is all from 2005 and AFAICT has languished since then.  I'm not aware of
> any movement within the Linux community to bring C++ support into the kernel.
>   
Not much changes in an established programming language in 3-4 years, 
unless it is still mutating (e.g. C#, Python).

This is pure speculation on my part, however: I wager the patches had 
bit-rotted for no good reason other than lack of interest or ignorance, 
certainly not from active opposition, perhaps apart from Linus Torvalds 
who had weighed in against C++ in other threads.

FreeBSD is not Linux, however, and the jury's still out on this one.

> I haven't been paying much attention to this thread, but I can't recall
> having read any persuasive arguments for using C++ in the kernel.
>   

Kernel-like systems are built with C++, this is just a fact of life. 
Think games, think embedded systems.

You personally may not be writing systems to run fast and low-level in 
C++, but I can think of at least 3 people I know personally who have 
done and continue to do so. Given, they are folk who have spent a long 
time learning C++ -- the tool has a steep learning curve, and Bjarne 
Stroustrup himself would no doubt be the first to admit this.

Whilst code such as the Standard Template Library (STL) may not be an 
appropriate fit for all low-level uses, the fact of the matter is, 
something from <algorithms> has had many pairs of eyeballs on it. Having 
to hand-code stuff like set symmetric difference is tedious if you don't 
actually have to do it. If you do -- work smarter, not harder.

I wonder if many of the objections raised against C++ have actually been 
considered in the light of the new C++0x spec.

At the moment, there are several projects out there which don't even 
involve C++ in the *kernel*, which are directly impacted by the issues 
which Andriy is attempting to solve because they use the system headers; 
I therefore fully support what he is doing, as he is saving people a lot 
of hassle.

It's time to get real, and admit that C++ is a very powerful tool that, 
whilst it can be misused in untrained hands, can be very powerful in 
skillful hands. Just because something isn't to one's personal tastes, 
doesn't mean it should be regarded as anathema or mandatory, IMHO.

thanks,
BMS