[PD] C++ for reusable dsp lib - or better use C?

[Rich E]

For the last 10 years or so, it's been considered bad practice to use naked
pointers in C++.  This is because of shared_ptr and friends, along with
stl.  It's great; for example, I have a moderately sized C++ project I'm
working on at the moment that has absolutely no explicit delete's -
everything is handled by scope.

Here's a recent talk from Bjarne Stroustrup who says something to these
affects:
http://video.ch9.ms/ch9/252f/ed5c3dc3-3335-493b-9e2c-9fd00012252f/GoingNative2012KeynoteStroustrup_med_ch9.mp4

I think he gets into unique_ptr about 2/3rds in.

On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Billy Stiltner <billy.stiltner at gmail.com>wrote:

> You guys made me remember why I don't like compiler options. Thanks! haha.
> asm to me is like programming in c++. but inline assembly in either c or
> c++ is not. What we need is flat address space without the overhead of GDS
> segment sorcery. It's pretty bad to be able to delete a  list of a list of
> pointers to objects  that deletes itself before it deletes itself in a
> polymorphic virtual destructor. ;) C++ is great but it is much easier to
> keep up with pointers in c. c is just like c++ without the confusion you
> can work yourself into a pointer to a function is a pointer to a function
> and if yo look at the assembly language there aint nothing wrong with using
> struct instead of class. it's all code an data when its running. the
> differences in the output are going to be more than likely caused by leaky
> capacitors and noisy fans or  2 coils of wire too close together.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pd-list at iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management ->
> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puredata.info/pipermail/pd-list/attachments/20120305/50dcac95/attachment.htm>