On Mon, Apr 4, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Hi!
On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 00:47 +0530, mohit verma wrote: [....]
> As far as i can decipher , we impose Object oriented paradigm inOOP is a design issue independent of the used programming language. So
> 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** .......
you actually *can* do OOP with C (or assembler or ....) and I have seen
C++ programs which do not employ the ideas behind OOP.
What does it buy and what does it cost?
> why dont we use some fully OOPs supportive language like JAVA or
> partial supportive language like C++ to construct Linux Kernel????
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.
Did you google for it and read the links etc.?
> I don't think that performance is the main reason behind all this .
> Is it??
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
--
Bernd Petrovitsch Email : bernd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
LUGA : http://www.luga.at
--
........................
MOHIT VERMA
_______________________________________________ Kernelnewbies mailing list Kernelnewbies@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.kernelnewbies.org/mailman/listinfo/kernelnewbies
