On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 22:48:41 -0600, Tony wrote: > breakers for some (a lot?) of software. That's why I think GC should be > an opt-in rather than an opt-out choice. That's a key characteristic of > C++: opt-in. And I really, really like that level of creative freedom.
That's not necessarily good. There are now multiple commonly-used methods for pointing to instances in C++: plain pointers, references, and smart pointers, all with different usage and semantics. It's a burden for library writers and library users. An opt-in GC only makes the burden heavier. In contrast, most GC-ed languages make life simpler not requiring a plethora of alternate management/lifetime schemes. Take care, Daniel
