[tialaramex]

I understand that for C++ programmers "That's possible" versus "That's a good idea" is a distinction without a difference, however for the rest of us the fact you can use templates as much as you like in, say, Windows drivers, does not magically mean it's a good idea to write complex templated code in Windows drivers.

The constraints in /kernel like forbidding exceptions are because otherwise they (Microsoft) need to do a bunch of extra work to support your bad idea. But your use of templates has no impact on their work, so knock yourself out adding as much complexity as you like this way.

[pjmlp]

Here is another example, running C++ straight on car firmware free of Linux politics via AUTOSAR certification standard.

https://www.parasoft.com/blog/breaking-down-the-autosar-c14-...

But what do they state specifically? Ah, right.

> "The document allows in particular the usage of dynamic memory, exceptions, templates, inheritance and virtual functions."

https://www.autosar.org/fileadmin/user_upload/standards/adap...

[tialaramex]

It definitely feels like we're talking past each other. I keep telling you why people think it's a bad idea, and you keep showing that you're allowed to do it anyway. We know. That's the difference between impossible and a bad idea.

[stonemetal12]

You keep saying it is a bad idea like it is a given. He keeps saying 5 bazillion programmers are quite successful with your "bad idea" so maybe it isn't so bad. Is there any evidence either way on the effects of templates on code quality?

[pjmlp]

Nope, it is the difference regarding politics of what goes into the Linux kernel and the rest of the world, and it is quite clear to which side each of us belong.

[kaba0]

Why exactly? They are a compile time concept which only generates code for types where it is needed. That C devs instead copy-paste the same code 10s of times, use some shitty slow linked list, or the worst, use textual macros doesn’t make any of them a better tradeoff imo.