Subject: Re: [boost] discussion of garbage collection in C++
From: Raindog (raindog_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-04-26 02:57:22
Edward Diener wrote:
> Raindog wrote:
>> Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>>> Simonson, Lucanus J wrote:
>>> Why stop half way? Why not have an open source C++ runtime
>>> environment if the goal is applications programming and rapid
>>> prototyping in C++ with open source components? An open source GC
>>> library is a good building block for such a system, and of course
>>> we'd prefer to implement it in C++.
>>> Why build a runtime environment based on GC when you can make a
>>> better one that is not?
>> Because the majority of programmers have proven that they obviously
>> prefer a GC environment over an RAII one. Given that a large number
>> of C++ programmers don't even take advantage of RAII, I would say
>> that a c++ runtime w/ GC and RAII would be very appealing to a larger
>> number of people.
> Whenever anyone writes "the majority of programmers..." one can discount
> the subsequent statement "the majority" of the time.
Unless you are talking about something that is true.
> .Net, Java, Python, Perl, Ruby, D et al automatically provide GC.
8 of the top 10 languages in use today, according to
http://www.tiobe.com/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html, provide GC. I
think my statement about what the majority of programmers prefer still
stands. I'm not trying to say however that GC is best/better than RAII
etc, or that the languages with GC are somehow better than C++. I do
however think that the "ez mode" programming that GC'd environments
provided appeals to a larger number of programmers than does C++. C++ is
an expert friendly language for many reasons and one would be naive to
think that one's profession is filled with experts.
Also, for people looking for a runtime envrironment for C++, they can
look at Ch.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk