On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:11:38 Lukasz Stafiniak wrote: > (Another question which is off-topic for this list is whether smart > pointers in their situation would be a high performance hit.)
Depends what "their situation" is. :-) Smart pointers are adequate for specific domains where performance is unimportant and cycles cannot occur, like handling the destruction of GUI elements. In general, smart pointers are orders of magnitude slower than garbage collection because they bump values in the heap every time they change hands. Also, don't forget that many people incorrectly claim that smart pointers deallocate at the earliest possible point when, in fact, they typically keep values alive longer than necessary. -- Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e _______________________________________________ Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management: http://yquem.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/caml-list Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs
