Re: Garbage Collection - The Trash Begins To Pile Up
Nemanja Trifunovic wrote:
Francis Glassborow wrote:
In article <1167258570.556475.222910@79g2000cws.googlegroups.com>,
Nemanja Trifunovic <ntrifunovic@hotmail.com> writes
Le Chaud Lapin wrote:
The purpose of this post is to provide a bit of empirical evidence that
GC is no panacea, and that adding it to C++ might do more harm than
good.
I agree with most of the points from your post, but there is nothing to
worry about: C++ is not and will *never* be a garbage-collected
language. It is possible that we see optional garbage collection added
to the language, but I doubt even that will happen.
I would lay heavy odds that you are mistaken. Mandatory optional GC
(i.e. compilers are required to provide it if the programmer wants it)
is almost certain to be part of any multi-threading option and if the
next version of C++ does not have explicit support for efficient
multi-threading on multi-core processors it will be a dying language.
So you are saying efficient multithreading is not possible without GC?
It is. It's just much harder - much more harder than manual memory
management.
Andrei
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]