4 ms·

> This is error-prone and a leak risk. You just made the code buggy Well, that entirely depends on your skill and your overall design. But again, there's still

by rsp1984 7y ago

> This is error-prone and a leak risk. You just made the code buggy Well, that entirely depends on your skill and your overall design. But again, there's still vector<shared_ptr<SomeThing>> to the rescue if we need it. > Avoiding std::move or insisting you don't need it is like scattering const_cast everywhere. Strawman. I never said that. I said if you require std::move in a certain situation, have another look at your overall design. Again, same as const_cast.

kllrnohj 7y ago
> Well, that entirely depends on your skill and your overall design. If your argument against std::move & unique_ptr is "I don't make mistakes" then your ego is vastly too large to be a C++ developer. The design doesn't change. unique_ptr just solidifies the design such that the compiler can help enforce the design. > But again, there's still vector<shared_ptr<SomeThing>> to the rescue if we need it. If you want to insist all heap allocates are always shared_ptr you can certainly do that. Personally I'd consider that dreadfully slow & expensive, and at that point you're far, far better off just using a GC'd language instead. > I said if you require std::move in a certain situation, have another look at your overall design. std::unique_ptr single handily proves this wrong.
- rsp1984 7y ago
  > If your argument against std::move & unique_ptr is "I don't make mistakes" then your ego is vastly too large to be a C++ developer. Please stop the strawmans and polemics and allow your ego to consider the opinion of someone who is, in all likelihood, more experienced in shipping product written in C++. > If you want to insist all heap allocates are always shared_ptr you can certainly do that. Personally I'd consider that dreadfully slow & expensive Oh well. I have a feeling we're not going to agree. Maybe let's discuss again in a few years. Maybe I'll have tried std::move then and found that it is somewhat useful in certain special situations. And maybe you'll have realized that the "dreadfully slow & expensive" shared_ptr doesn't make a difference in terms of end product quality in, I'd wager to say, 99.99% of situations. > at that point you're far, far better off just using a GC'd language instead. Uuhhm, no.

kllrnohj 7y ago

> Well, that entirely depends on your skill and your overall design. If your argument against std::move & unique_ptr is "I don't make mistakes" then your ego is vastly too large to be a C++ developer. The design doesn't change. unique_ptr just solidifies the design such that the compiler can help enforce the design. > But again, there's still vector<shared_ptr<SomeThing>> to the rescue if we need it. If you want to insist all heap allocates are always shared_ptr you can certainly do that. Personally I'd consider that dreadfully slow & expensive, and at that point you're far, far better off just using a GC'd language instead. > I said if you require std::move in a certain situation, have another look at your overall design. std::unique_ptr single handily proves this wrong.

rsp1984 7y ago
> If your argument against std::move & unique_ptr is "I don't make mistakes" then your ego is vastly too large to be a C++ developer. Please stop the strawmans and polemics and allow your ego to consider the opinion of someone who is, in all likelihood, more experienced in shipping product written in C++. > If you want to insist all heap allocates are always shared_ptr you can certainly do that. Personally I'd consider that dreadfully slow & expensive Oh well. I have a feeling we're not going to agree. Maybe let's discuss again in a few years. Maybe I'll have tried std::move then and found that it is somewhat useful in certain special situations. And maybe you'll have realized that the "dreadfully slow & expensive" shared_ptr doesn't make a difference in terms of end product quality in, I'd wager to say, 99.99% of situations. > at that point you're far, far better off just using a GC'd language instead. Uuhhm, no.