Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Interest in the missing smart pointer (that can target the stack)
From: Emil Dotchevski (emildotchevski_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-03 15:19:15
On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Noah <duneroadrunner_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On 2/2/2016 6:36 PM, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:20 PM, Noah <duneroadrunner_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> Noah, see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48kP_Ssg2eY
> Emil, yeah I actually saw this a while ago. It was good the second time
> 'round too. Before C++11, I was so ready to dump C++ for a more modern
> language unencumbered by C++'s legacy baggage. The only problem is that
> every language that came along for some reason seemed to choose mandatory
> garbage collection at the expense of raii. I don't know what the state of D
> is these days, but at least initially they seemed to be embracing garbage
> collection as well. I just can't accept that non-deterministic garbage
> collection is the right answer. But since C++11, it seems C++ may now be
> powerful enough to provide modern alternatives to it's own problematic
> legacy language elements. And my library was an attempt to see if this was
> possible. And so far it seems to be.
> From slide 28 of his talk about why C++ is not going be fixed:
> - Too complicated to fix.
> - Too constrained by legacy code compatibility requirements.
> - <in bold> No real interest by user community or standardization
> It seems the only way anyone's going to be interested in adopting safer
> language elements is to market it as a brand new language :)
Can't make C++ less messy or less complicated or more safe without breaking
it. If you're looking to avoid the possibility of undefined behavior, C++
is not the language for you.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk