Re: [boost] [Root Pointer] New Documentation

Subject: Re: [boost] [Root Pointer] New Documentation
From: Artyom Beilis (artyom.beilis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-11 09:56:01

>> 1. From what I understand it is basically reference-counting pointer
>> with a "pool" that deletes pointers with dangling references. Am I
>> right?
>
>
> Hmmm - I think it's much more interesting to think in terms of what problem
> the library solves as opposed to how it does it.
>

Yes and no, considering that GC and reference counting is widely used
and researched concept than if you come with a new magic bullet
you need to explain how and not what do you solve.

For example python provides reference counting and cycle detection in gc...

>> 3. What happens when root_ptr is deleted and node_ptr exists? Does use
>> of node_ptr lead to undefined behavior? If so it should be marked as
>> big warning.
>
>
> To me, the main weakness of the document is the absence of type requirements
> - aka concepts.  Documentating these requirements goes a long way to
> answering questions like that above.  Again, you're being held to a higher
> standard than many libraries already in boost.

Yes you are right but it is very basic utility library so, as it was proven
the stuff like that must be documented.

>>  From my point of view the biggest issue of shared_ptr/reference
>> counting isn't cyclic references (that are easily broken with weak
>> references and some smart programming) but rather the overhead of the
>> atomic operations that cost hundreds of cycles and cache invalidation.
>> This is BTW one of the major reasons GC is more efficient in certain
>> scenarios.
>
>
> It seems to me that this is not the focus of the library but rather feature
> of the implementation.  It seems that this is a criticism of the submission
> for not addressing some other problem.  It's very possible that these
> features are more interesting that the original purpose of the library.  But
> I don't think that it's fair criticism of the library itself, but rather an
> idea for a different library.

I just provide an input. GC is very wide topic. But currently it isn't major
issue from my point of view.

>
>> Run benchmarks of copying pointers as well in single core case and
>> multiple core cases.
>>
>> IMHO it is interesting concept a sort of merge between object/memory
>> pool and shared_ptr.
>
>
> LOL - I think you're mixing what the library does with how it does it.
>

In case of memory management both are equally important.

Artyom