deprecated delete and manual memory management

[Jacob Carlborg]

On 2011-04-27 22:28, Daniel Gibson wrote:
> Am 27.04.2011 22:13, schrieb so:
>>> One thing that is perhaps obvious, but eludes me; when dropping the
>>> delete-operator, are there any obvious reason to not also drop the
>>> "new" keyword? ("new" is a fairly good method/variable name, if
>>> nothing else)
>>>
>>> I could see two possible alternatives:
>>>
>>> Global (and defined-by-default) template new!(Type): (as suggested
>>> elsewhere in this thread by so)
>>>    This is very close to the current situation, but makes it possible
>>> to use as a method-name, and clearly states there's nothing "magic"
>>> about it.
>>>
>>> Explicit Allocator, such as GC.new!(Type).
>>>    Would have the benefit of clearly showing who did the allocation,
>>> and would map nicely to other allocators. (Malloc.new/free!(T)!(T)).
>>>
>>>    It would also allow library-methods that might allocate instances,
>>> take an allocator as an optional template argument. I.E.
>>>      auto obj = dict.createObject("key");
>>>    OR
>>>      auto obj = dict.createObject!(Malloc)("key");
>>>      scope(exit) Malloc.free(obj);
>>>
>>> Possibly an obvious bad idea, but I haven't seen it discussed?
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> / Ulrik
>>
>> With the deprecated "delete", custom allocators and such i don't see
>> much of a reason other than saving an "!" (actually we don't save a char
>> here, " " also a char :) ), and "()" if you are calling the default
>> constructor. I don't consider these points negative, quite contrary, you
>> just got rid of an arcane syntax.
>>
>> It is understandable for C++ has it. If nothing else, the lack of many
>> basic features (maybe the reason of this syntax).
>>
>> Rather then removing all together, i would drop them from language and
>> go for a library solution, if there is an obvious blocker, i also fail
>> to see it :)
>
> It'd create template bloat and uglier syntax (expecially confusing for
> people coming from about any other popular OO language) for a really
> common, standard feature.
> These drawbacks are acceptable for custom allocation and other stuff the
> average user shouldn't care about, but not for an elemental feature like
> "new".
>
> Cheers,
> - Daniel

Ruby uses "ClassName.new" to create a new instance and Objective-C uses 
"[[ClassName alloc] init]". Not all languages use "new ClassName".

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg