Jeff Schwab wrote: >> You like managing your own memory, be my guest. But please don't >> imply that you're putting forth less effort because of it. You're >> just putting forth different effort. > > I disagree with you completely. Your points don't make any sense to me > at all. I believe I am putting forth less effort by having a generic > resource-management infrastructure, rather than a memory-specific > language feature -- that's not just an implication, it's my honest belief.
Yet your belief is provably wrong. It's been realised by langauge developers long time ago. It's quite simple. 1. Your "generic" resource-management infrastructure is not generic to begin with! It does not work for mutually dependant resources. 2. Your "generic" infrastructure increases burden on the programmer everywhere any resorce (including trivial one like memory) is used, while GC kills that burden in 95% of the cases. C++ish approach puts the notion of ownership everywhere - both in 95% of cases where it's useless and in remaining 5% where it's actually needed. That's not reduced effort by any means. 3. You can't handle clean-up errors in reasonable way in C++ish approach, so anything more complex should not by handled that way anyway. rgds -- "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity" -- L. Lang -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
