this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
730 points (95.9% liked)

linuxmemes

21172 readers
1041 users here now

Hint: :q!

Sister communities:

Community rules (click to expand)

1. Follow the site-wide rules

2. Be civil
  • Understand the difference between a joke and an insult.
  • Do not harrass or attack members of the community for any reason.
  • Leave remarks of "peasantry" to the PCMR community. If you dislike an OS/service/application, attack the thing you dislike, not the individuals who use it. Some people may not have a choice.
  • Bigotry will not be tolerated.
  • These rules are somewhat loosened when the subject is a public figure. Still, do not attack their person or incite harrassment.
    • 3. Post Linux-related content
  • Including Unix and BSD.
  • Non-Linux content is acceptable as long as it makes a reference to Linux. For example, the poorly made mockery of sudo in Windows.
  • No porn. Even if you watch it on a Linux machine.
    • 4. No recent reposts
  • Everybody uses Arch btw, can't quit Vim, and wants to interject for a moment. You can stop now.

    • Please report posts and comments that break these rules!

    founded 1 year ago
    MODERATORS
    poopsmith@lemmy.world
    zephyr@lemmy.world
    rtxn@lemmy.world
    730
    Supreme leader mad (sh.itjust.works)
    submitted 6 months ago by 0x4E4F@sh.itjust.works to c/linuxmemes@lemmy.world
    103 comments fedilink hide all child comments
     
    you are viewing a single comment's thread
    view the rest of the comments
    [–] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

    Take a look at what even the proposer is saying wouldn't be allowed in:

     (1) new and delete.  There's no way to pass GFP_* flags in.

 (2) Constructors and destructors.  Nests of implicit code makes the code less
     obvious, and the replacement of static initialisation with constructor
     calls would make the code size larger.

 (3) Exceptions and RTTI.  RTTI would bulk the kernel up too much and
     exception handling is limited without it, and since destructors are not
     allowed, you still have to manually clean up after an error.

 (4) Operator overloading (except in special cases).

 (5) Function overloading (except in special inline cases).

 (6) STL (though some type trait bits are needed to replace __builtins that
     don't exist in g++).

 (7) 'class', 'private', 'namespace'.

 (8) 'virtual'.  Don't want virtual base classes, though virtual function
     tables might make operations tables more efficient.

    C++ without class, constructors, destructors, most overloading and the STL? Wow.

    [–] ozymandias117@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    That doesn’t really surprise me, as most of those are the same requirements from any embedded development use case using c++ that I’ve worked on

    4 and 5 are the only ones stricter than I’m used to

    [–] BartyDeCanter@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 6 months ago

    I've only worked on a few embedded systems where C++ was even an option, but they allowed 2, 4, 5, and 7. Though, for the most part most classes were simple interfaces to some sort of SPI/I2C/CAN/EtherCAT device, most of which were singletons.

    [–] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 1 points 6 months ago

    time to go pedantic and use parts of the c++stdlib that weren't included in the stl!