Re: [boost] [BB++] Consensus

Ok thanks for your perspective but I wouldn't call Root.Ptr a garbage collector because a garbage collector is by definition non-deterministic. Just a simple deterministic memory manager is enough. But the way BB++ goes then I don't see any way it can fail. It works even in multithreaded mode. Actually it is faster than shared_ptr in multithreaded mode as you can see in the homepage of Root.Ptr. And at the same time it'll help C++ compete against all these commercial languages that are currently using garbage collectors such as Java, C# and Swift. Sincerely, -Phil Richard Hodges via Boost wrote:

If you can create an *easy* (i.e. impossible to get it wrong) way to introduce deterministic garbage collection into c++, I think this might be a big enough win to convince me that garbage collection can be considered as a serious software engineering tool.

On 2 August 2017 at 18:18, Phil Bouchard via Boost wrote:

...

After the feedback I got back from the community, people agree they would rather improve C++ than seeing a new language taking off.

I definitely agree but I would like professional opinions on how the following could be achieved: - to add instances of an object implicitly as each scope; - to add implicit references to these objects in top-level classes - to overload 'operator .' - to use 'auto' for member variables instead of 'decltype'

Thanks for your help I really appreciate.

Sincerely, -Phil

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/ mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost