11 ms·

Linus Torvalds on C++

• mtrn 15y ago
  A discussion which was inspired by this rant by Linus Torvalds on Stack Overflow: http://stackoverflow.com/q/1995471/89391 http://stackoverflow.com/q/1995471/89391 (Is learning C++ a good idea?)
  • 2muchcoffeeman 15y ago
    I don't know C++. The accepted response does not start off well. "C++ is a complex language, and if you don't learn it properly, it's very easy to shoot yourself in the foot. And that is also why you shouldn't listen to most non-C++ programmers hate towards C++. Most of the time, they didn't learn the language properly, so they're not really able to judge the language" What does that mean? It sounds like, that without some significant amount of knowledge, you can't understand it's benefits. Thinking of the languages I know, I think the things they are trying to improve are apparent with a basic knowledge of the language.
    • gravitronic 15y ago
      Most people learn C++ as a feature-by-feature increment over C. This means they generally write function-oriented programming with objects instead of object-oriented programming, mix exceptions with returning errors, stick with pointers and char*'s instead of references and string's, and end up rewriting data structures before finding out about STL. That being said I use some features of C++ I like (inheritance and STL) and while the result is somewhat bastard C/C++ it does what I need well, which at the end of the day is all we should really ask for from a language.
  • sciurus 15y ago
    To avoid confusion, the link is "A discussion on Stack Overflow which was inspired by this rant by Linus Torvalds"
• redthrowaway 15y ago
  I tend to take everything Linus says with a grain of salt. Not because he's wrong, or because he doesn't know what he's talking about, but there's enough of the puckish troll in him that I tend to read his posts more with an eye to their intended effect, than to what he's actually saying. There are plenty of applications for which c++ is a perfectly sensible language choice. Git isn't one of them.
  • mikeash 15y ago
    If I understand what proponents of C++ say, C++ is supposed to be suited best for medium-level programming where abstraction is helpful but low-level constructs and speed are still helpful. It's supposed to give you many of the benefits of higher level languages while still giving you high performance. It's intended to be widely portable but still easily hook into special OS-specific facilities. This description sounds like an excellent language for git to me. And in fact, while I don't like C++ much in general, if properly managed, I think a project like git could do well if written in C++.
    • dedward 15y ago
      It's that "if properly managed" bit that would be a nightmare from hell to manage... easier to just do it in C. What it's intended to do is rather different than what it's actually used for in real life..... code talks, anything else is just smoke, right? IF someone can come alnog and show us a better way in any language, then tehre's something to argue about, otehrwise, the guy who has working code wins over the guy without it, always.
      • mikeash 15y ago
        I guess what I'm really interested in here is, if git isn't an appropriate project for C++, just what is?
        • redthrowaway 15y ago
          AAA games, browsers... Really, anything where you need to have some abstraction but performance is still critical.
• captaincrunch 15y ago
  Linus is probably the %1 of people in the world who actually needs to get the performance gain that C has over C++ - as for the rest of us? Probably doesn't matter.
  • Game_Ender 15y ago
    > needs to get the performance gain that C has over C++ With RTTI and Exceptions disabled you should be able to get almost identical performance with C and C++. In some cases C++ compiler has additional information that can allow it to produce faster code as well.
    • cube13 15y ago
      You also need to not use: STL(most implementations are too slow) Boost or STLPort(namespace and compatability issues if you're not producing executables) Most OO features like inheritance and polymorphism(a lot of that is resolved at runtime, which eats cycles) Function overloading(debatable, since the compiler should resolve the function signatures at compile time) You're pretty much left with C with namespaces at that point.
      • jmccaffrey 15y ago
        C++ actually has some performance advantages over C, especially relating to static polymorphism (qsort v. std::sort)
        • aidenn0 15y ago
          Technically you can do tricks like that with the C preprocessor, though it is a bit ugly and lacks automatic instantiation.
          • yannickt 15y ago
            It is also not type safe.
    • 15y ago
• stephen_g 15y ago
  Has anyone really not seen this in the last two years? Anyway, Linus may be a very experienced C programmer, but that doesn't mean his opinion on C++ carries much weight... I'd be more interested on what someone who actually has a lot of experience in using C++ says. Especially with modern C++ and recent tools, libraries etc, which are very different from what was around five or ten years ago. I suppose it is nice for a change for someone bagging out C++ (however inaccurately) to be advocating C instead of a managed or interpreted language though!
  • nxn 15y ago
    Haven't seen it. I've seen many other examples of Torvalds being an ass, but I don't bother to keep track really. It does make me wonder though how he's able to get away with responses like that, when most other "founders" (not sure what the proper term here really is) would have the majority of their users/supporters just go elsewhere. EDIT: ... Let alone have supporters who get defensive enough to start downvoting someone who stated the obvious (he did act like an ass), while asking a reasonable question too.
    • winestock 15y ago
      This man is being downvoted unfairly. I've read Torvalds' post at the top of the page. I've also read the balance of opinion on this page. The majority view is that C++ really is a terrible language for writing a kernel. Fine, I accept that. Now re-read Torvalds' post. How many people here would want to work with someone who regularly expresses himself like that? I know, I know; substance is more important than image and so forth. But that post reminds me of what people said working with Steve Jobs was like before he died. Life is too short to work with jerks. EDIT: Removed excess snark.
      • gaius 15y ago
        Except it's not true: The Commodore Amiga delivered multi-tasking, shared objects and sophisticated IPC in only 256k of main memory. They cite OO techniques as being key. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exec_(Amiga) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exec_(Amiga)
• mckilljoy 15y ago
  In principle I agree that C is a more appropriate choice in many situations, but I think his pure hatred for C++ is kind of funny.
  • emmelaich 15y ago
    I think it's partly a gambit or defensive permission, or sort of an allergic reaction to having C++ suggested to him SO MANY TIMES over the last two decades.
• balloot 15y ago
  This feels like it was written by a guy who wrote a popular OS and has had people kissing his ass for 15 years. Basically the coding version of a diva musician.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • joezydeco 15y ago
    How many distributed version control systems have you worked on and released to the public? Any worth critiquing?
    • nxn 15y ago
      Had he worked on any would that have been a valid excuse to be derogatory to others over something as childish as what programming language they use? If you're going to ask me if I had worked on any OS kernels or distributed version control systems, the answer is no. But I would also never degrade people who might otherwise be willing to help contribute to my projects based on some idiotic notion of programming language superiority. At this point I don't even expect anything better out of him because he did something great for the world. I expect better just because at this age he should be an adult.
      • bronson 15y ago
        Hint: someone saying that you should rewrite your project in his own favorite language is NOT someone that you should allow to help or contribute.
        • nxn 15y ago
          Torvalds' post to me looked to attack C++ programmers in general. I'm not ignoring that the initial comment was pretty useless, but even so there are better ways to handle those than the way he chose.
        • trustfundbaby 15y ago
• strags 15y ago
  Linus's objections seem centered on the fact that it makes it easier to generate bloated code. While this may be true, there's nothing a little self-discipline can't control. STL and Boost may not make sense for the kernel, but there's nothing wrong with using C++ classes at their most basic. The kernel would be far more readable if it used classes and simple inheritance rather than re-inventing the wheel with structs full of function pointers. C++ gives you more flexibility with regard to encapsulation as well - it's hard to argue that that doesn't lead to cleaner, safer code.
  • jmj42 15y ago
    "...rather than re-inventing the wheel with structs full of function pointers." I think you got that backwards. Structs full of function pointers predate c++. Going for the ad absurdum, why bother inventing C++, it's just a re-inventing of the structs full of function pointers wheel?
    • strags 15y ago
      You're right - "re-inventing the wheel" is probably the wrong phrase - I used it because it conveys a sense of needless effort when there is a better alternative. Basically, those who don't have access to basic object-orientation are doomed to implement it themselves in a messier, more verbose form.
      • jmj42 15y ago
        I think the argument that Torvalds was making here is that that's exactly what C++ is. Messy and unnecessary. You can write C++, but if you do so without the mess, you're so close to C that there's no point in using C++. I, on the other hand, would argue that C's lack of object-orientation somehow dooms one to implement it. OOP is _not_ the pinacle of software development. Further, I would argue that "structs full of function pointers" neither, necessarily, represents a desire for object-orientation nor is it messy.
        • strags 15y ago
• srean 15y ago
  Now this has me a bit confused, why no love for STL ? I wish Linus had added more detail. Is the complaint that the binaries are too big (not quite, if you strip them of the unnecessary symbols) ? or is it that it can be a tedium to go over the reams of error messages that compilers spit out when things go wrong. The second point I am willing to concede, it requires you to read messages inside out, which lisp does train you into doing. Or is the complaint about something else entirely ? Something else that I hear often that bothers me is the claim that STL adds huge runtime overhead. Maybe it was true with the old compilers, but with the current ones, GCC4.5, Intel its not true at least not in a noticeable way. The whole point of STL was the ability to generate optimized code. I have actually verified that the iterator based access patterns on vectors for instance gets optimized away into simple pointer based indexing into memory blocks. I like STL, in fact I will go so far and admit that I will not code in C++ unless I sense that I will benefit from STL and or templates. Though STL gets used often merely as a container library I think you get more out of it when you use its algorithms. I really like it that I do not have to write for loops (and potentially get the indexing wrong). If one squints the right way, it has map, reduce, filter and map-reduce all built in (transform, accumulate, innerproduct) though I miss a vararg zip function. An un-ignorable side benefit to using the STL primitives is that if a parallelized version comes along the way, you get a fairly painless way to make your code parallel. You do have force some of your snippets to be sequential to account for the fact that there is not enough work to parallelize. This is the direction were GCC's STL library is headed with its parallel_mode. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/parallel_mode.html http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/manual/parallel_mode... @cube Appreciate your comment. For writing kernels and VMs I gladly buy your argument, to add to what you said there is the ABI mess.
  • cube13 15y ago
    There are a few problems with STL when writing kernel or API code. One is due to it's completely generalized nature. Since it's not heavily optimized for either speed or memory use, it tends to perform rather poorly in both areas. Not that acceptable when you're making kernel code, where it's often better to write optimized data structures for the problem at hand rather than just relying on templated code. In that situation, where performance is king, you want to tailor your data structures to fix your problems, rather than the other way around. STLPort and Boost fare better in this respect, but STLPort in particular leads to the second problem. The second problem is due to the std namespace. Using the std namespace means things that link in your code, even dynamically, cannot necessarily use other STL implementations. So if the kernel uses STLPort, that means that every other program written on top of the kernel needs to use it.
• davvid 15y ago
  Linus' rant is grounded in practicality. Portability concerns are huge for git. Read the source code. Git compiles on lots of (arcane and ancient) Unix flavors, and has to deal with the compilers on those platforms. C is still the right choice for git.
  • Valdemar 15y ago
    > Portability concerns are huge for git. Oh, is that why Git has such great support for Windows?... ...
    • slowpoke 15y ago
      "Portability" doesn't necessarily mean "runs on every system ever made". As pointed out by your parent, it runs on pretty much all UNIX flavors, even the ancient and obscure ones. If you want to blame anything for the abysmal git functionality on Windows, it should be Windows, not git.
      • jpatte 15y ago
        IMHO, "being portable" is more about "being available to many users" than "being available to many systems". Focusing on ancient and obscure systems (used by who, exactly?) while ignoring systems used by a large potential users population doesn't make a lot of sense to me. And I don't see how you can blame that on these major systems either. Willing to specifically support archaic but important systems who desperately needs git (idk, NASA supercomputers perhaps?) is fine, but that's kind of a niche strategy; it's not about portability anymore.
        • tommorris 15y ago
          Git was built specifically to scratch the itch of Linux kernel developers. Linux kernel developers tend to like making sure the Linux kernel works on as many obscure architectures as possible. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_supported_architectures https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Linux_supported_archit... Making sure Git is portable across system architectures is quite important. Also, portability in the "being available to many systems" thing is important for a lot of developers. I build stuff that currently has to deploy on SPARC/Solaris, but there are plans to make it so that in the not-so-distant future, all that stuff will be moving to virtualized clusters of x86_64 Linux. Portability in the narrow UNIX sense is pretty damn important to a lot of people.
• georgieporgie 15y ago
  sigh not this flamewar repost again. The fact that he leads with "language X sucks because it attracts type Y programmers" is quite possibly the worst, cheapest, and lowest attack I've ever seen in technology. It's sad that a technical hero like Linus would basically behave like such a tantrum-throwing child. It reflects poorly on the whole tech community.
  • jfoutz 15y ago
    I was sure there was a rule that this is only allowed to be reposed on Thursdays. My google fu is failing me on the rule though. Today isn't Thursday is it?
  • petercooper 15y ago
    The fact that he leads with "language X sucks because it attracts type Y programmers" is quite possibly the worst, cheapest, and lowest attack I've ever seen in technology. We see a similar point being made against Rubyists and Rails developers on HN quite often, alas. And, worse, in the "I'd learn Ruby but it seemed like there was too much drama" crowd.
    • gnosis 15y ago
      Ruby and Python both benefited enormously in their constant ragging on Perl. I can't even count the number of times I've heard the "Perl sucks!" mantra (often from people who have little if any experience with the language). That sort of attitude reminds me of this diagram: http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9872/programmerheirarachy.jpg http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/9872/programmerheirarachy...
• nebiros 15y ago
  again? sigh
  • Kuytu 15y ago
    I feel you. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3192238 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3192238 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=401544 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=401544 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=51451 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=51451
  • javadyan 15y ago
    That holy war simply never gets old.
• rburhum 15y ago
  Although it is true that certain languages give you the flexibility of writing "utter crap", I can also write pretty crappy unmaintainable code in pure C just as easily. Nevertheless, after 14 years of coding in C++, I love how beautiful my C++ code comes out. All that "OO crap" makes my code easier to understand, debug, maintain and extend. I would take that at the expense of how much more difficult it is to create binary compatible libraries in C++ (something quite easy in C). I can see how for a kernel, that would be more important.
  • deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  • cageface 15y ago
    I've been working on my own DSP library in C++ on and off over the past year and a few times I've gone through the thought experiment of rewriting it in pure C. Every time I conclude that all I'd gain in the process is the extra work of finding some third party collection library, adding manual resource management where I currently use RAII, and rolling my own struct-based object system, probably with a buch of macro glue. I don't see how this makes my life any simpler.
• deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
• nodemaker 15y ago
  I wonder what Linus thinks about Objective C as another as an alternative approach to Object Orientation in C. IMO Objective C gets much farther in implementing polymorphism and dynamic binding than C++ can even dream of. Although I hear good things about Boost, I think thats like patching the language instead of fixing the fundamental flaws in its design.
  • yannickt 15y ago
    "fundamental flaws in its design" It would be pretty hard to fix them without breaking backward compatibility.
    • nodemaker 15y ago
      Agreed.
• kabdib 15y ago
  I use C and C++ extensively (30+ years writing C, 25 or so writing C++). I much prefer C when writing systems-level code. It's simpler and a lot more predictable. You don't get the illusion that things like memory management are free. I /have/ written drivers in C++. Here you have to be very careful about memory allocation (calling 'new' in an interrupt handler is usually death, though I've also written very specialized allocators that work in IRQ contexts). STL isn't going to cut it, especially if you're writing something real-time that needs very predictable performance. So, my basic prejudice is that while you can use C++ for systems stuff, you still really need to be close to C semantics, so you're basically buying namespaces and "C with classes" at the risk that some yahoo later on is going to #include <map> and utterly hose things . . .
  • jgraettinger 15y ago
    My own experience is that RAII has been very useful in low-level work when used to capture cleanup/finalization. Results in fewer if-statements and SLOC. Issues of real-time performance and new vs malloc vs in-place/nothrow new also seem like orthogonal concerns here. The larger problem is that yahoo who's using the wrong algorithm and/or maintaining driver code w/o benefit of code review ;)
    • beagle3 15y ago
      My (admittedly short) experience writing kernel drivers with C++ was that RAII could be great help, but there's no way you can rely on any library you did not write yourself (and one that you wrote with the express intent to use for low-level work at that). C++ code just tends to assume it's fine to do whatever crazy stuff it assumes needs to be done, like allocating 4 bytes at a time using new. C code is usually more careful about that, and quite a few packages offer control of their memory allocation in C. (Yes, C++ does allow you to overload new and delete, and have allocator traits, and more. Come back when you've actually implemented this for a library you did not write, and we'll discuss war stories if I can remember them. It was 2001, it was ugly back then, and I'd be surprised if it is better looking now).
  • shin_lao 15y ago
• yzhou 15y ago
  I guess what he meant was signal to noise ratio, i mean, Aplayer/Cplayer ratio. Too many Cplayer programmer start learning c++ without any idea how cpu and memory works, if you let them to mess with the kernels it would be a nightmare for Linus.
• dubajj 15y ago
  This saddens me as C++ is growing into such a beautiful language. C++11 is a major step forward, and I don't really buy in to complaints that are not about the current standard. Bad programming is language agnostic. Disliking a language generally implies that you don't know enough about it to really get it.
  • jgraettinger 15y ago
    Here here! I've really enjoyed using C++11. Feels very clean. Lambdas for inlined anonymous callbacks in boost::asio? Yes please.
• andrewflnr 15y ago
  Why does the guy Linus is replying to think C's portability is BS? Anything besides the fact that any libraries used in your "portable" program must also be portable?
• jon6 15y ago
  I have used C and C++ extensively (10+ years both). I once tried to implement the C++ inheritance model in a C program (basically just fill up the virtual table manually). It was a complete nightmare, wrought with silly mistakes all over the place. Probably Linus is right that C++ does not belong in the kernel but for application level code reinventing all the basic C++ things in C seems like a waste of time. Linked lists, virtual methods, some form of exception handling.. why waste your time? I laughed pretty hard when I understood how the linked list implementation in the Linux kernel works (pointer arithmetic tricks + sizeof). People don't even invent anything different from whats already in C++. The key to using C++ is to find a comfortable subset and stick with it. I haven't used C++ on projects with more than 3 people yet so I don't know the pains of agreeing on exactly which subset to use but I imagine it could be done.
  • kabdib 15y ago
    One thing about inheritance: It's not necessarily a good way to model things. Often it's a procrustean bed where you try to twist your concepts into what the language will let you express. I've seen a lot of people use inheritance to save keystrokes. "I can save time if Plane inherits from Bus, they've both got wheels, after all." That's a kind of "typing" system . . . but not the kind that people expect :-) Honestly, the world does not often cleanly decompose into a class tree. Usually it's pretty messy.
• Alind 15y ago
  But no one can deny that c++ is the most fascinating programming language in this world. You can either spend or waste as long time as you want to __LEARN__ this language and never can say I understand ALL.
  • Hemospectrum 15y ago
    I deny it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_(programming_language) C++ occupies an interesting point on the curve of fascination vs. utility, but to call it the most fascinating language (by your own definition especially) is just hyperbole.
• truncate 15y ago
  I found a response to this http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseToTorvalds.html
  • zvrba 15y ago
    To me, Linus lost all credibility after I've seen what mess Linux kernel code is, and how well-written BSDs are.
• chj 15y ago
  I've read this "news" like dozens of times, and every time I can't help laughing. What he is speaking of is generally true. If I am not writing in C, then I am writing in ASM for speed, or in LISP for less code. C++ just doesn't fit in my tool chain, because it really doesn't excel in any aspect.
  • javadyan 15y ago
    C++ (and other mainstream languages, for that matter) excels in the aspect that you can actually write useful software with it. Yet, to the date, there are exactly zero useful pieces of consumer software (e.g. browsers, office suites, video processing) written in lisp. Thus, I suggest that lisp zealots stfu about C/C++ already, and either fix their favorite language or invent a new one.
    • hkolek 15y ago
      Yeah, of course, right... that's why we have Lisp programs on space probes [1], PS2 games written in Lisp [2], PG's Viaweb, Maxima [3] among others, ITA Software, Emacs, StumpWM, and a ton of other stuff I can't remember right now. Ah not to forget AutoCAD. I don't give a flying fart whether it's "consumer" software or not. A ton of useful software has been and is written in Lisp dialects and there are a lot of application domains that are really hard where you just cannot use C++ (or some other blub) because it's just not expressive enough. Often those are not consumer applications because most consumer applications are really mundane glorified reporting apps that could be coded in BASIC by a monkey (and if you read TDWTF you get the impression that happens more often than not). tl;dr: Obvious troll is obvious. [1] http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/lather-rinse-repeat-a-tour-of-the-repl.html http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/lather-rinse-repeat-a-tour-o... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp [3] http://maxima.sourceforge.net/ http://maxima.sourceforge.net/
      • javadyan 15y ago
        Ah, "blub"... the trusty indicator of a brainwashed pg fanboy. Look, I know that something has been written in lisp, still it is not the kind of software that people use (directly or indirectly) every day and you know it. Plus, you're just being disgustingly arrogant by indirectly saying that your precious lisp is too good to be used for the mundane, everyday software development. tl;dr: lisp zealots are funny and arrogant UPD: FYI, AutoCAD is NOT written in Lisp, it just supports extensions written in a dialect of Lisp.
• willvarfar 15y ago
  Symbian was written in C++. It was basically C with encapsulation. So using C++ as a better C. It worked well. It didn't use STL nor boost and the exceptions weren't as you'd know them. Memory management was much more carefully counted than is normal in C/C++ programs, and reservation meant commit. It was programmed by a pretty clever disciplined bunch. Well, most of us were ;)
• bleakgadfly 15y ago
  I find it interesting how 'everyone' seem to hate C++, yet, so many uses it. If C++ is so bad, why does people continue to code with it? Personally I have just started to look at C++ due to Microsofts integration with it on WinRT/Metro for Windows 8. I mean, MongoDB, Node.js, Microsoft's Windows Runtime (which provides access to the systems API for both JavaScript, C#/VB.NET and C++), MySQL, Membase, Haiku, Chromium are all notable examples of software written in C++ that seems to be quite well.
• danbmil99 15y ago
  Breaking news this hour: Linus hates C++
• WalterBright 15y ago
  C'mon, guys, that posting was 4.5 years ago. It's old news, and has been repeatedly hashed to death.
  • pdmccormick 15y ago
    The good thing about hashing something repeatedly is that the result is always the same!
• thepreacher 15y ago
  Its quite fascinating seeing heavy weights have a go at each other. Most of the discussion here is right over my head but I find myself quite enjoying it. At least its better that the current boxing heavy weight scene. This is about the only post on hacker news that I have read comments on from start to finish. Brilliant all!
• mad 15y ago
  I submitted an interesting response to this rant a while back. It makes some good points, despite the inflammatory technique of characterizing Linus' rant as being caused by a "C-hacker syndrome". http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3416863 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3416863
• Anirak 15y ago
  Linux torvalds sounds like an asshole.
• Symmetry 15y ago
  May I recommend that if you're looking for a more considered critique of the C++ programming language you look at the C++ FQA (Frequently Questioned Answers) instead? http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/ http://yosefk.com/c++fqa/
• avgarrison 15y ago
  What is this site? It's full of what appears to be anti C++ propaganda. I am left wondering, did Linus really say any of this?
  • Lipoly 15y ago
    This site also posted this (http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/I_did_it_for_you_all http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/I_did_it_for_you_all) like it was a real interview, when in reality... http://www.snopes.com/computer/program/stroustrup.asp http://www.snopes.com/computer/program/stroustrup.asp
    • avgarrison 15y ago
      Interesting find. Now I am very skeptical of this site. Does anyone know if Linus really said this stuff?
• Moschops 15y ago
  For all his skills, there are no two ways about it. Torvalds is a jerk. The kind of jerk who leads a technical rebuttal with a personal insult.
• 16s 15y ago
  Why not take the kernel (it's gpl code) and re-write a major part of it in C++? And then fork that and get others to use it? That would either prove that C++ can be used in kernel or disprove it. We could call it C++nux ;) Then, the BSD guys would have even more reason to call Linux garbage and the OS/language/superiority wars would rage on for even more generations. Wouldn't that be so cool.
  • jiggy2011 15y ago
    That sounds like a lot of effort for nothing but if you fancy doing it, then it's gpl so nobody is stopping you. edit: I didn't see the last part of your comment, did you edit it? either that or I have a sense of humor failure :)
• api 15y ago
  I don't completely agree, though I do completely agree when it comes to kernel, embedded, or performance-critical stuff. One thing I love about Torvalds and that makes him great is that he has zero respect for fads. CS is unfortunately very, very faddish. Good ideas like OOP and Agile become fads, and then become universal hammers with everything becoming a nail, destroying whatever virtues these ideas once had.
• kung-fu-master 15y ago
  But Mercurial was written in Python and performance is comparable to git. So, his argument is not correct about the performance reason on choice of C over C++. Even interpreted Python which was used in Mercurial was not speed bottleneck. Yes, I know that most of speed critical sections was written in C. But almost all project in Python. Also Darcs was written in Haskell and Bazaar with Python. I hate C++ too (over 10 years of experience). But Linus is full of BS too. Yes, choice of C language in Git is right choice. But source code of Git is horrible and unmaintainable mess.