3 ms·

I wrote kernel-level code for quite a few years. There, barebones C makes a lot of sense. (I can make a case for a subset of C++ that avoids many C++ issues, in

by kabdib 14y ago

I wrote kernel-level code for quite a few years. There, barebones C makes a lot of sense. (I can make a case for a subset of C++ that avoids many C++ issues, including use of RAII and similar things that get you into trouble in environments where /nothing/ is free, and you have to think carefully about the teardown strategy of every single allocation). Don't confuse "easy" with "simple". That's my latest mantra.

huhtenberg 14y ago
> a case for a subset of C++ Do elaborate. I come from the same background and I've been contemplating forking C for several years now. What you said sounds all too familiar to my own reasoning, so I'd be very curious to know what you have in mind. In broad strokes.
- jitl 14y ago
  Take a look at the C++ coding standards adopted for high-reliability areas. For example, the coding standards for the Joint Strike Fighter: http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf
  - kabdib 14y ago
    Those were mostly good (a little bit of crazy, but not much). The Google guidelines are okay for non-kernel work. I've worked on three teams that have independently converged on very similar guidelines (at Apple, a start-up, and a group in Microsoft). I find that convergence quite interesting.
- vvhn 14y ago
  a restricted subset of c++ (embedded c++) is exactly what is used to write drivers for Mac OS X. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I/O_Kit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I/O_Kit The kernel itself is in C though.
alinajaf 14y ago
Could be a coincidence, but I've been chanting that mantra at everyone who will listen after watching this talk by Rich Hickey: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy
- kabdib 14y ago
  No coincidence, that's exactly where I got it. It's a great talk. I think that if it doesn't make you (a) depressed, then (b) mad, that you didn't listen carefully enough. :-)
mbreese 14y ago
I've taken to telling others that when I say 'easy', I really mean straight forward. Often I'll think of a solution that's "easy", yet it may take a good two weeks to get done.

by kabdib 14y ago

huhtenberg 14y ago

> a case for a subset of C++ Do elaborate. I come from the same background and I've been contemplating forking C for several years now. What you said sounds all too familiar to my own reasoning, so I'd be very curious to know what you have in mind. In broad strokes.

jitl 14y ago
Take a look at the C++ coding standards adopted for high-reliability areas. For example, the coding standards for the Joint Strike Fighter: http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf http://www.stroustrup.com/JSF-AV-rules.pdf
- kabdib 14y ago
  Those were mostly good (a little bit of crazy, but not much). The Google guidelines are okay for non-kernel work. I've worked on three teams that have independently converged on very similar guidelines (at Apple, a start-up, and a group in Microsoft). I find that convergence quite interesting.
vvhn 14y ago
a restricted subset of c++ (embedded c++) is exactly what is used to write drivers for Mac OS X. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I/O_Kit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I/O_Kit The kernel itself is in C though.

alinajaf 14y ago

Could be a coincidence, but I've been chanting that mantra at everyone who will listen after watching this talk by Rich Hickey: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy http://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy

kabdib 14y ago
No coincidence, that's exactly where I got it. It's a great talk. I think that if it doesn't make you (a) depressed, then (b) mad, that you didn't listen carefully enough. :-)

mbreese 14y ago

I've taken to telling others that when I say 'easy', I really mean straight forward. Often I'll think of a solution that's "easy", yet it may take a good two weeks to get done.