Re: [boost] discussion of garbage collection in C++

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.