And I don't see why we would use C++ in drivers as well, it's not meant for that. Maybe Windows CE does it, that's not why we either should do it or not. Just that it seems to me that now that M$ want's to get everyone out of kernel land where even MSWord could go, they allow them a lot of things to make their life easier. Nothing strange now that Windows CE crashes so often :))) C++ is not a language for that, it's too convoluted IMO. We need something simple for kernel land, something that makes it easy to know which func each byte belongs to. I think there is a reason why Linux, *BSD, (*NIX I know of), Minix, XINU, QNX (?), are all coded in C (not to mention MacOS in Pascal, and AmigaOs in B I think, though AmigaOs was OO, but an OO language doesn't make an OO prog, neither an OO-prog needs an OO language, for example tweaking ffmpeg C sources makes me feel writing in C++). As for the current version anyway, C++ is not supported in the kernel, even if there was one newsletter that explained how to hack some basic C++ things, but it wasn't easy IIRC. François. My 0.02 FF (sorry I need to get rid of them :P) En réponse à Michael Phipps <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > As I told you privately, R1 will be C only for drivers > (well, as much so as R5 was/is). Any further conversation > on this should go to Glass Elevator. > > >While i was coding for a USB driver in BeOS i had > >to use 'C' because C++ wasn't supported by the > >kernel. It would be great if OBOS supports c++ > >for writing drivers. Because the entire flow of > >logic becomes very easy and every functionality of > >the driver can be encapsulated in to classes. Windows CE > >does support C++ for writing USB drivers. So i suppose > >that OBOS should also be able to support C++. Well > >how far the things i am saying will be feasible I don't > >know. > > > >Your thoughts please. > >ANIL > > > > > > >