From: Miki Jovanovic (miki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-02-01 15:30:17
"greg colvin" <gcolvi-_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I like this test because it is the paradigm use for shared_ptr,
> which was a smart pointer that can be used with the standard
> containers and algorithms.
> This test shows that the convenience of smart pointer is far
> from free, and that pushing for better performance is not a
> waste of time. I would love to see the results of this test
> for various implementation strategies on various systems.
I just wanted to point out that using smart pointers is not a
convinience, it is much closer to necessity. If you even mention the
word exception in your application, you will almost invariably end up
using a kind of smart pointer (maybe only auto_ptr in simple cases). So
comparing a useful tool with a simple pointer is not a valid comparison.
I do agree with you on one account, performance should be looked at
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk