|
|
|
|
|
|
by barrkel
5533 days ago
|
|
|
Unless you modified an existing or wrote a new C++ compiler, no, you haven't really (don't forget what you're piggy-backing on when the compiler is invoking ctors and dtors for you too). Boost shared pointers are toys; they don't deal with copy-on-write semantics. C++ exception safety is also hilariously difficult to get right (this adds to the refcounting problem); the language is broken by design. |
|
|
Not sure which thing you're saying "I haven't really". But yeah, at times I have experimented with code that replaced built-in C++-runtime-library functionality.
(don't forget what you're piggy-backing on when the compiler is invoking ctors and dtors for you too).
Ctor/dtors by themselves don't, by themselves, generally allocate heap objects.
Boost shared pointers are toys; they don't deal with copy-on-write semantics.
I don't think that CoW is an essential feature of every allocation tracking scheme. Still, if you declare shared_ptr<const T> you can copy when you need to.
The std::unique_ptr and "move" semantics in C++11 are filling in some of those gaps in the core language.
C++ exception safety is also hilariously difficult to get right (this adds to the refcounting problem)
Be honest - it is exceptional conditions in all forms of programming are "hilariously difficult". C programs typically handle it sporadically or dedicate 50% of the code bulk (evenly throughout the program) to handling such conditions. C++ exceptions are tools to help you to put all that danger into a single facility which you can then point to and be horrified by. This is a great improvement.
the language is broken by design.
As someone else once replied to me, Yeah, if your definition of broken is awesome. :-)
It just depends on what you want out of your language. I like other languages too.