Will it be rewritten using c++? Or another language?
Actually I don't know what C++ can give to kernel. This is pretty low-level programming, so moving to high level is just another headache.darkshadow said:Will it be rewritten using c++? Or another language?
And it still is. Its simplicity is fundamental.darkshadow said:the only language was suitable in the past was c
what language a modern operating system would be written in?
rden said:Millions of generations of chickens and eggs cant be wrong:
C is still the best choice for an operating system.
(Hmmm, or is it eggs before chickens?)
rden said:Millions of generations of chickens and eggs cant be wrong:
C is still the best choice for an operating system.
(Hmmm, or is it eggs before chickens?)
richardpl said:FreeBSD should be rewritten in assembly to get maximal performance. Both clang and gcc fail to give performance to your code.
Possible, but we would lose portability. And one would need *good* assembly programmers or the result will be as unoptimized and inefficient as code written in the most HLL.richardpl said:FreeBSD should be rewritten in assembly to get maximal performance.
Assembly is the easiest to comprehend and most logical language if you understand how an architecture works, so no. I think it would be only slightly slower to debug than C.darkshadow said:100 year to debug
Choose C-- or C + a lot of inline assembly and you have already lost portability which is important for systems like FreeBSD.darkshadow said:I was think about middle level language
killasmurf86 said:Recent scientific research proved that chicken was before egg....
Don't ask me how they proved, it's to complex to explain in my native language, not to speak about English
UNIXgod said:Almost in the same sense to use enough assembly to create the smallest amount of C possible to build the rest of the language within itself...C.