Username or EmailPassword
One friend told me something like: "You do not need garbage collection if you do not produce garbage!"... really true!!
"That's one of the things keeping me sticking with C++. Garbage collection is an ugly and unsatisfying solution to a minor problem."
I think it's more a matter of opinion.
The problem with delete in a managed language is that the language can no longer vouch for program safeness with regards to preventing code from corrupting it's own structures. Deleting an object which is still in use could cause stray pointers/references.
"I think a better solution is judicious use of reference counting & shallow copying. Then you get to keep speed, determinism, smoothness (no stopping the world), and deterministic destruction (for RAII)."
It's tempting to think so, but it's not safe to assume that malloc/free is always going to be faster than GC. There are alot of factors, it came up not long ago:
Are you thinking that the language ought to enforce reference counting on objects or just that programmers should use it as a design pattern?
One issue with ref counting is cyclic data structures. Though it may be uncommon, I'd hate for any language to be limited in this fashion: Visual basic used ref counting and was susceptible to memory leaks in cyclic structures.
I personally don't have any problem using new/delete myself, but I don't have any serious objections to managed memory if it helps devs produce more reliable code. Edited 2011-06-18 03:45 UTC