Writing kernel modules in Haskell [LWN.net]

Writing kernel modules in Haskell

Posted Sep 14, 2009 0:32 UTC (Mon) by bjacob (subscriber, #58566)
In reply to: Writing kernel modules in Haskell by cesarb
Parent article: Writing kernel modules in Haskell

All these arguments are indeed defendable --- but again, they are arguments against using C++ throughout the kernel, and hardly constitute an argument against using C++ internally in the back-end of a kernel module.

That said, if we discuss why C++ isn't used throughout the kernel --- I understand your point. One remark though: about your first paragraph, one might turn the argument upside down and say that C is evil because a function named print_hello() may actually do a lot of malloc's and send a network packet too ;) The difference between C++ and C here is that functions in C++ may appear is more various forms than in C (operators, constructors, etc). It's really a matter of knowing what to expect: an experienced C++ programmer will understand spontaneously when an operator+ is likely to have to allocate memory for the result. Which takes us back to what is really Linus' best argument against C++ throught the kernel, and to your last paragraph... in other words, we agree.

(Log in to post comments)

Writing kernel modules in Haskell

Posted Sep 14, 2009 6:13 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]

Well a module is still just a hunk of the kernel and for best results, long-
term, it should be every modules goal to get integrated into the kernel
proper. Therefore its counter productive to use any language other than the C
version that is acceptable by the kernel folks.

Now the haskell thing is a interesting experiment and as such it does not
make sense to be constrained by conventions.. But it may make some change to
the status quo if something is learned from it. So it's neat.

Writing kernel modules in Haskell

Posted Sep 14, 2009 15:17 UTC (Mon) by bfields (subscriber, #19510) [Link]

they are arguments against using C++ throughout the kernel, and hardly constitute an argument against using C++ internally in the back-end of a kernel module.

I don't see how you're using that distinction.

The bulk of the kernel is drivers. If drivers were written in a variety of languages, that would make the drivers as a whole more difficult to maintain.