| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
C++, the steampunk languageC++, the steampunk languagePosted Sep 14, 2009 19:46 UTC (Mon) by bronson (subscriber, #4806)In reply to: C++, the steampunk language by jgg Parent article: Writing kernel modules in Haskell
Er, by definition C++ has all of C's "infinite variety" of alloc/free functions. Plus it adds more of its own (it's great fun watching people incorrectly override delete[]... from a distance).
If you say, "well, don't use X in C++" then I'll just say "don't use X in C."
(Log in to post comments)
C++, the steampunk language Posted Sep 15, 2009 14:33 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Yes, but in C++ code you don't use that 'infinite variety': you wrap whateveritis up in an object and call the appropriate C allocation/freeing functions *once*, from the constructor and destructor of that object. Then you can consistently use the new/delete family of functions *everywhere* else. So the chaos of allocation and freeing functions that can easily be mixed up transforms into a single allocation/freeing function for all objects and a single one for all arrays of objects (which are sort of deprecated now 'cos the STL types are just as good). And it becomes impossible to use the wrong allocation and freeing functions anywhere, and memory leaks become harder to accidentally introduce as well (as the majority of object allocations are on the stack, so construction and destruction are automatic).
(The same applies to malloc()/free(): they shouldn't be used in well-written C++ programs, at all. They're not typesafe.)
|
|
||||||||||||