Re: Object Management
On Aug 30, 1:06 am, Erik Wikstr=F6m <Erik-wikst...@telia.com> wrote:
On 2007-08-29 20:57, spekyuman wrote:
I found a public paper online stating, "The first time I returned to
writing C++ after a year of writing Java, I was appalled at how much
my design was constrained by managing the lifetime of objects. When C+
+ classes share objects, then they must negotiate who owns the object.
Garbage collection is not available, and smart pointers often fall
short." This is how the fellow introduced himself. He goes on to make
some design decisions for object management:
The question about who owns an object have nothing to do with pointers
references or such. It's a problem you can run into in Java too, you
just don't have to deal with deleting pointers.
Yes and no. In C++, the delete operator does two things: it
logically ends the object lifetime (disposes of the object),
*and* it frees memory. In Java, these two are always distinct,
but if an object needs explicit disposal, then you still have to
do it manually. (Note that some low level idioms in C++ require
separating the two as well; I've never seen a container class,
pre-STL or post-, which didn't separate them, for example.)
[...]
If you are not aware of the differences between normal members, pointers
and references then it's time to start studying. My personal preference
is to avoid pointers if possible since there are certain problems only
pointers can create. That does not mean that I don't use them however.
It depends on context. I avoid references in object types with
value semantics, because of the problems they cause with
assignment. And pointers are, of course, a no-no where operator
overloading is involved. Beyond that, it's largely a question
of local conventions.
--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient=E9e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S=E9mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'=C9cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34