Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th May 2006 21:25 UTC, submitted by luzr
OSNews, Generic OSes Torvalds has indeed chimed in on the micro vs. monolithic kernel debate. Going all 1992, he says: "The whole 'microkernels are simpler' argument is just bull, and it is clearly shown to be bull by the fact that whenever you compare the speed of development of a microkernel and a traditional kernel, the traditional kernel wins. The whole argument that microkernels are somehow 'more secure' or 'more stable' is also total crap. The fact that each individual piece is simple and secure does not make the aggregate either simple or secure. And the argument that you can 'just reload' a failed service and not take the whole system down is equally flawed." My take: While I am not qualified to reply to Linus, there is one thing I want to say: just because it is difficult to program, does not make it the worse design.
Thread beginning with comment 122971
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Abstraction
by Jack Burton on Wed 10th May 2006 09:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Abstraction"
Jack Burton
Member since:
2005-07-06

"there is a reason why much of the core code of the linux kernel is written in C rather then C++ ;) "

Yeah, and the reason is that most people don't know C++ or have stupid preconceptions against it. Just read the thread where Linus says he's against C++ in the kernel.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Abstraction
by Cloudy on Wed 10th May 2006 16:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Abstraction"
Cloudy Member since:
2006-02-15

"there is a reason why much of the core code of the linux kernel is written in C rather then C++ ;) "

Yeah, and the reason is that most people don't know C++ or have stupid preconceptions against it. Just read the thread where Linus says he's against C++ in the kernel.


Unfortunately, when you rely on volunteers, and you don't have an actual architect, the best thing you can do is pick a simple easy to understand language.

The history of object oriented programming is strewn with the corpses of failed attempts at operating systems, both commercial (Apple's) and academic (Clouds) precisely because people, including those who are quite expert at the language, don't really understand C++.

(At this point in history, I believe it is safe to say that Andy Koenig, and, possibly, Alex Stepanov, are the only people who _really_ understand C++)

Reply Parent Score: 2