Linux: C++ In The Kernel?Why Not C++??

2004-04-02 05:18:55 117 阅读 AI 写同款 · GEO 优化AI 选题数据监测一键分发 ›

未来Linux Kernel 会不会用Rust 重写？至于整个Linux生态，C和C++的地位依旧非常稳固，但Rust的加入为开发者提供了一个更现代化、更安全的选项，未来可能会看到越来越多的工具和库使用Rust，尤其是在需要高性能的场景中。、gtk-rs，这些库正在帮助开发者创建跨平台的应用，虽然它们还不如Qt或GTK那样普及，但随着时间的推移，Rust可能会在这方面逐渐取代部分传统的工具链，尤其是在那些注重性能和现代化开发模式的场景下。技术的进步就像是在沙滩上建塔，C和C是基石，Rust是新材料，但无论怎么变化，塔的基础始终不会改变。上的优势是不可忽视的。阅读详情

A recent posting to the lkml requested help in porting the C++ Click Modular Router kernel module from the 2.4 stable kernel to the 2.6 stable kernel. The request was for ideas on fixing C++ related compilation errors, but the thread quickly turned into a lengthy debate on whether or not C++ had a place in the Linux kernel. The issue has been debated many times before, long ago earning its own entry in the lkml FAQ which offers numerous reasons why the kernel is not written in C++.

During the recent discussion, when it was suggested that perhaps the kernel is written in C simply because "we've always done it that way...", Linux creator Linus Torvalds joined in to explain:

"In fact, in Linux we did try C++ once already, back in 1992. It sucks. Trust me - writing kernel code in C++ is a BLOODY STUPID IDEA.

"The fact is, C++ compilers are not trustworthy. They were even worse in 1992, but some fundamental facts haven't changed: 1) the whole C++ exception handling thing is fundamentally broken. It's _especially_ broken for kernels. 2) any compiler or language that likes to hide things like memory allocations behind your back just isn't a good choice for a kernel. 3) you can write object-oriented code (useful for filesystems etc) in C, _without_ the crap that is C++."

...全文