[BB++] Consensus

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

[BB++] Consensus

Boost - Dev mailing list
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [BB++] Consensus

Boost - Dev mailing list
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 <[hidden email]>
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
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [BB++] Consensus

Boost - Dev mailing list
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]>
> 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
>
>





_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [BB++] Consensus

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Phil Bouchard via Boost <[hidden email]> 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

I would call those: "stack-oriented" objects.


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: [BB++] Consensus

Boost - Dev mailing list
In reply to this post by Boost - Dev mailing list
Phil Bouchard via Boost <[hidden email]> 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'

I forgot to add that C++ will also need:
- metadata of the classes in order to propagate the proxy associated to the
pointers within those classes

But I don't know yet how this could be "scientifically" abstracted for
proper integration into the C++ language.

Once again, thanks for your help.


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