Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Joker_vD 1184 days ago
Ah, so reference counting is not considered a form of garbage collection any more? Ingenious but somewhat of dishonest.
2 comments

Smart pointers do not necessarily use reference counting. std::shared_ptr is reference counted, but std::unique_ptr is not. Needless to say that std::unique_ptr should always be the default choice and std::shared_ptr only used when actually needed.
std::unique_ptr is reference counted, it's just that the count only goes up to BOOL_MAX instead of LONG_MAX.
I think you’re making a joke, but reference counting is different than what a unique pointer does. (a destructor is not the same thing as a reference count, even if that reference count is limited as you suggest.)
No, I don't think it's a joke. It's just that when your counter is limited to values of 0 and 1 only, you can optimize it so heavily it almost looks like a different thing entirely: binary semaphores are usually called mutexes, but they're still semaphores.
It was a joke and not a joke, a joke with a kernel of truth.

But I only now just discovered that C23 is genuinely adding `BOOL_MAX`, which reminds me of the classic Fortran —

> The primary purpose of the DATA statement is to give names to constants; instead of referring to pi as 3.141592653589793 at every appearance, the variable PI can be given that value with a DATA statement and used instead of the longer form of the constant. This also simplifies modifying the program, should the value of pi change.

But it’s not counted, that’s my point.

It’s getting quite pedantic to talk about ones and zeros in this context anyway.

Please show me the counter in std::unique_ptr :-)
Since that counter can only have two values, it's storage is optimized and merged with the underlying raw pointer itself (not unlike Rust's null pointer optimization for enums): non-null value of the underlying pointer also serve to represent the counter's value of 1, and the null value serves to represent the counter's value of 0. The check to not under-decrement, for example, manifests as the null check before calling the deleter on the underlying pointer.
like the other comment said, std::unique_ptr is not ref counted. Ref counting is one of the ways to implement garbage collection but it is not garbage collection by itself. C++ does not have garbage collection.
C++ does not have garbage collection in the standard library, just as shared_ptr was not part of the standard library in the past. You can currently have optional garbage collection in C++: https://github.com/pebal/sgcl
C++ can do pretty much anything, but that doesn't mean that it’s typical to do so. In practice, you will never see a garbage collector in C++.
You may be surprised. Herb Sutter wants to add optional GC to C++ 'syntax 2'.
Sitter’s idea in that is a different matter entirely.