manual memory management

[Paulo Pinto]

On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 09:17:35 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky 
wrote:
> 09-Jan-2013 12:54, Mehrdad пишет:
>> On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 08:51:47 UTC, Paulo Pinto 
>> wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 08:28:44 UTC, Mehrdad wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, 9 January 2013 at 08:14:35 UTC, Walter Bright 
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> On 1/8/2013 11:42 PM, Mehrdad wrote:
>>>>>> (True, it wouldn't give you the power of a systems 
>>>>>> language, but
>>>>>> that's quite
>>>>>> obviouly not my point -- the point is that it's a 
>>>>>> _perfectly possible_
>>>>>> memory-safe language which we made, so I don't understand 
>>>>>> Walter's
>>>>>> comment about
>>>>>> a GC being "required" for a memory-safe language.)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The misunderstanding is you are not considering reference 
>>>>> counting
>>>>> as a form of GC. It is.
>>>>
>>>> So you would say that C++ code (which uses reference 
>>>> counting) uses
>>>> garbage collection?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> You (or Walter I guess) are the first person I've seen who 
>> calls C++
>> garbage collected.
>>
>
> That's a stretch - IMHO I'd call the language garbage collected 
> iff it is the default way language-wise (e.g. if C++ new was 
> ref-counted I'd call C++ garbage collected).
>
> This way D is garbage collected language because the language 
> default is GC.

I was being provocative on purpose.

Having said that, a C++ application where *_ptr<> + STL types are 
used everywhere can make C++ almost a safe language.

Unfortunately most C++ libraries make use of naked pointers.

..
Paulo