For the last 10 years or so, it's been considered bad practice to use naked pointers in C++. This is because of shared_ptr and friends, along with stl. It's great; for example, I have a moderately sized C++ project I'm working on at the moment that has absolutely no explicit delete's - everything is handled by scope.
Here's a recent talk from Bjarne Stroustrup who says something to these affects: http://video.ch9.ms/ch9/252f/ed5c3dc3-3335-493b-9e2c-9fd00012252f/GoingNative2012KeynoteStroustrup_med_ch9.mp4 I think he gets into unique_ptr about 2/3rds in. On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Billy Stiltner <[email protected]>wrote: > You guys made me remember why I don't like compiler options. Thanks! haha. > asm to me is like programming in c++. but inline assembly in either c or > c++ is not. What we need is flat address space without the overhead of GDS > segment sorcery. It's pretty bad to be able to delete a list of a list of > pointers to objects that deletes itself before it deletes itself in a > polymorphic virtual destructor. ;) C++ is great but it is much easier to > keep up with pointers in c. c is just like c++ without the confusion you > can work yourself into a pointer to a function is a pointer to a function > and if yo look at the assembly language there aint nothing wrong with using > struct instead of class. it's all code an data when its running. the > differences in the output are going to be more than likely caused by leaky > capacitors and noisy fans or 2 coils of wire too close together. > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> > http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list > >
_______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
