Re: [boost] [BB++] Consensus

Subject: Re: [boost] [BB++] Consensus
From: Phil Bouchard (philippeb8_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-08-02 17:10:07

Ok thanks for your perspective but I wouldn't call Root.Ptr a garbage
collector because a garbage collector is by definition non-deterministic.
Just a simple deterministic memory manager is enough.

But the way BB++ goes then I don't see any way it can fail. It works even
in multithreaded mode. Actually it is faster than shared_ptr in
multithreaded mode as you can see in the homepage of Root.Ptr.

And at the same time it'll help C++ compete against all these commercial
languages that are currently using garbage collectors such as Java, C# and
Swift.

Sincerely,
-Phil

Richard Hodges via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> If you can create an *easy* (i.e. impossible to get it wrong) way to
> introduce deterministic garbage collection into c++, I think this might be
> a big enough win to convince me that garbage collection can be considered
> as a serious software engineering tool.
> 
> 
> On 2 August 2017 at 18:18, Phil Bouchard via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
> 
>> After the feedback I got back from the community, people agree they would
>> rather improve C++ than seeing a new language taking off.
>> 
>> I definitely agree but I would like professional opinions on how the
>> following could be achieved:
>> - to add instances of an object implicitly as each scope;
>> - to add implicit references to these objects in top-level classes
>> - to overload 'operator .'
>> - to use 'auto' for member variables instead of 'decltype'
>> 
>> Thanks for your help I really appreciate.
>> 
>> 
>> Sincerely,
>> -Phil
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/
>> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
>