Eliminate class allocators and deallocators?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Jeremie Pelletier wrote:
>>> Yeah I agree now after reading most of this thread, I know that these 
>>> keywords just map to functions.
>>>
>>> I've seen a proposal of a global new template somewhere, I don't like 
>>> that since at the global scope there are also structs, arrays and 
>>> whatnot that can be allocated by 'new'.
>>
>> Well it's easy to handle all of those with conditional templates.
>>
>>> I don't like the static new either since it prevents subclasses from 
>>> overriding their new/delete operations.
>>>
>>> What would then be a good way to replace new/delete operators to 
>>> still have them overridable? Isn't that the convenience that first 
>>> got them to be used in the first place? Other than global new/delete 
>>> overrides which is plain silly in D.
>>>
>>> I've pretty much found alternatives to all my other points against 
>>> taking out new/delete except for the override feature, find me an 
>>> alternative for that too and I'll be voting for new/delete to be 
>>> runtime function instead of language keywords, cause I can't think of 
>>> anything right now.
>>
>> I think you'd find this article interesting:
>>
>> http://www.ddj.com/article/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=184405016&dept_url=/java/ 
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrei
> 
> That was a long read, but a most interesting one! I already was familiar 
> of these design pattens but only used them where new didn't make sense, 
> this article really was an eye opener on that level, thanks a lot!
> 
> You have my vote to remove new/delete now :)

Someone convinced someone else of something on the Internets. What's 
this world coming to???

Andrei