Like Tree27Likes

interview with Linus

This is a discussion on interview with Linus within the General Discussions forums, part of the Community Boards category; Originally Posted by phantomotap O_o Someone still hasn't bothered to understand the complaints. I think it is kind of funny, ...

  1. #16
    C++まいる!Cをこわせ! Elysia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,594
    Quote Originally Posted by phantomotap View Post
    O_o

    Someone still hasn't bothered to understand the complaints.

    I think it is kind of funny, but you not liking his methods is fine.
    Precisely because not having fully understood the complaints, I will not comment on whether what Linus did was good or bad.
    So anyway, disregard anything said about what he did. I retract that. But his methods I don't agree with. A child with a tantrum is what sums him up.
    Quote Originally Posted by Adak View Post
    io.h certainly IS included in some modern compilers. It is no longer part of the standard for C, but it is nevertheless, included in the very latest Pelles C versions.
    Quote Originally Posted by Salem View Post
    You mean it's included as a crutch to help ancient programmers limp along without them having to relearn too much.

    Outside of your DOS world, your header file is meaningless.

  2. #17
    Master Apprentice phantomotap's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    4,246
    O_o

    As far as his position in the community weighs his behavior I actually agree with you that his behavior was inappropriate.

    Soma
    Elysia likes this.

  3. #18
    Registered User antred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by Elysia View Post
    The man is like a child. When something doesn't go like the way he wants, he start pointing fingers and starts shouting foul words at them.
    It is as if the man does not understand that all companies cannot--and will not--use Linux's open source model, which does bring about delays at times.
    I haven't been able to take the man seriously since I read his rant on C++.

  4. #19
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,402
    got a link to the rant on C++?

  5. #20
    Registered User manasij7479's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Kolkata@India
    Posts
    2,498
    http://kerneltrap.org/node/2067

    His comments make perfect sense (I think) from the perspective of a Kernel Developer, though.
    Yarin likes this.
    Manasij Mukherjee | gcc-4.8.2 @Arch Linux
    Slow and Steady wins the race... if and only if :
    1.None of the other participants are fast and steady.
    2.The fast and unsteady suddenly falls asleep while running !



  6. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,402
    in the context of linux, I would agree, since the entire kernel is written in C since day 1. a new operating system kernel would certainly benefit from an object oriented approach with C++. when linux was first created, C++ was not a very mature language, but now is perfectly adequate for the task of writing a kernel.

  7. #22
    Unregistered User Yarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    1,623
    Absolutely. Developing a kernel in a language that hides memory allocation, is a disaster waiting to happen.
    And as much as I like exceptions, I also agree that they're broken (even for generic applications).
    I don't think I know what he means by C++ compilers not being "trustworthy", though.

    Really, I do like C++, but I still find his opinion of it to be respectable.
    A class that doesn't overload all operators just isn't finished yet. -- SmugCeePlusPlusWeenie
    A year spent in artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God. -- Alan J. Perlis

  8. #23
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,402
    I think that so long as you follow good C++ design practices, the memory allocation and de-allocation can happen automatically and transparently without need for concern. if you overload the new, new[], delete, and delete[] operators to work properly in the context of in-kernel memory management, and make sure to document everything clearly where it allocates and frees memory, you should be able to have a very robust and maintainable piece of software. I do agree that C++ exception handling could be a bit too heavy for kernel code, and other means should probably be employed for handling errors.

    I don't think I know what he means by C++ compilers not being "trustworthy", though.
    in 2004 when the article was written, I think I'd agree with him. the standard was still very new at that point, and many compilers did not support it completely or properly.

    it's a completely different story today, 8 years later, because the 2003 revision of the standard is well implemented and documented in most compilers.

  9. #24
    Registered User antred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241
    I was actually talking about this little gem. Linus Torvalds on C++

  10. #25
    Registered User antred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarin View Post
    And as much as I like exceptions, I also agree that they're broken (even for generic applications).
    How are exceptions broken? What do you feel should be handled differently, and how?

  11. #26
    Registered User antred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241
    Btw, I quite like this guy's response to Linus' rant. A response to Linus Torvalds on C++

  12. #27
    Registered User antred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by Yarin View Post
    Absolutely. Developing a kernel in a language that hides memory allocation, is a disaster waiting to happen.
    C++ by itself doesn't hide anything. No one says you have to use STL components ... you can always new and delete explicitly. Obviously, if you were to write a kernel in C++ you'd first decide which features of the language should and shouldn't be used. Even if you would merely use C++ as a beefed up C, you'd still end up with a number of extremely useful things you just wouldn't have if you would use C (RAII, better type safety, templates).
    RAII alone would be more than worth it.

  13. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    2,402
    Quote Originally Posted by antred View Post
    I was actually talking about this little gem. Linus Torvalds on C++
    that guy really just has a chip on his shoulder about a lot of things, and unjustifiably so. he makes a few valid points, but those points - particularly the one about the STL - are now so entirely moot that it's not even worth discussing anymore. he basically says that there is no reason to ever use C++, and he's just simply wrong about that. C++ is a tool, just like C, that has a purpose and an appropriate application. in fact, I'd say that anyone who insists on using C for performance or portability reasons is just as wrong. C++ is both efficient and portable, and saves the programmer from having to do many things that C forces upon its users. in my opinion, anyone who would deliberately start a new project, especially a major commercial project, insisting on C, is wasting time and energy.
    antred, manasij7479 and Elysia like this.

  14. #29
    Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,752
    in my opinion, anyone who would deliberately start a new project, especially a major commercial project, insisting on C, is wasting time and energy.
    Why? I could say the same about insisting on any particular language. You should always use the language that is best suited for the job. I can't say that I can even name a successful kernel that was not done in either C or assembler.
    I'd say that anyone who insists on using C for performance or portability reasons is just as wrong.
    I don't see where portability is even an issue. You are talking about writing a portable kernel?? Portability is, in my opinion, higher up on the food chain. Directly accessing the hardware is very non-portable. As far as speed, I think either language is acceptable, when properly used.
    he basically says that there is no reason to ever use C++
    In my opinion, he never said there is no reason to ever use C++. He just stated that trying to use C++ for a kernel, would be using the wrong tool for that job.

    Jim
    stahta01 likes this.

  15. #30
    Registered User antred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    241
    Quote Originally Posted by jimblumberg View Post
    In my opinion, he never said there is no reason to ever use C++. He just stated that trying to use C++ for a kernel, would be using the wrong tool for that job.
    Yes, and then he went on to name a bunch of nonsensical "reasons".

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. linus c client program
    By bazdagirl in forum Linux Programming
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-21-2011, 11:22 AM
  2. Basic Linus Shell
    By Josh_Dude83 in forum C Programming
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-19-2010, 07:43 PM
  3. Interview???
    By verbity in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 08-09-2007, 07:47 AM
  4. linus svm
    By axon in forum Tech Board
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-16-2004, 06:38 PM
  5. Linus VS. Bill
    By Yoshi in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 31
    Last Post: 12-25-2001, 08:28 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21