You are only considering the simplest uses of references. Consider iterator
invalidation, deletion of the object referenced by the "this" pointer,
truncation of a vector containing an object to which references are live, etc.
C++ references are not memory safe and no compiler warnings can make them safe,
because they are simply not.
It is unproductive to debate whether C++ compilers warn about all unsafe uses
of references, even in modern C++. There is no argument.
Patrick
Fernando Pelliccioni <fpellicci...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Well, since comments are disabled in the blog, I will analyze the
>points
>made in the article.
>
>** Ownership **
>
>int *dangling(void)
>{
> int i = 1234;
> return &i;
>}
>
>First, the way it is written. Please!
>This is not C++ ! (Well, it is C, therefore it is also C++, OK)
>I think it is written so in this way, maliciously, on purpose.
>If someone who doesn't know C++ see this, I think she runs in terror.
>Why not write it as any C++ programmer would do it?
>
>int& dangling()
>{
> int i = 1234;
> return i;
>}
>
>We still have the problem of dangling references.
>
>Any decent compiler can deal with this problem, and according to the
>Standard the implementations are encouraged to issue a warning in such
>a
>case.
>I don't know implementations that don't do it.
>
>GCC:
> In function 'int& dangling()':
>warning: reference to local variable 'i' returned [-Wreturn-local-addr]
> int i = 1234;
> ^
>Clang
> warning: reference to stack memory associated with local variable 'i'
>returned [-Wreturn-stack-address]
> return i;
> ^
>
>The same happens with MSVC.
>
>Do you think that the Warning is not much?
>Well, you can use a compiler option
>
> -Werror
>Or in this case....
> -Werror-return-stack-address
>
>...and... voilà, the problem is over, we now have errors instead of
>warnings.
>What is the advantage of Rust now? I think it's insignificant.
>
>
>** Unique Pointers **
>
>// C++
>int *i = new int;
>*i = 1234;
>
>Again, unnecessarily verbose C++ code.
>
>Compare it with:
>
>int* i = new int{1234};
>
>Compare it with:
>
>auto i = make_unique<int>(1234);
>
>And of course ...
>
>int i = 1234;
>
>
>
>So, now, what is the difference between...
>
>// rust
>let i = ~1234;
>
>and
>
>// C++
>auto i = make_unique<int>(1234);
>
>?
>
>The Rust code is shorter, but perhaps, more illegible. I think it is
>matter
>of taste.
>
>But now, the real advantage is not as great as before, or not?
>I think there is a bad intension of the author of the article to
>enlarge
>the advantage.
>
>
>Question, How to write the following in Rust using the operator ~ ?
>
>auto e = make_unique<Employee>("Peter");
>
>...and, what about shared-ownership?
>
>
>If the author informs all this, I would think that there is no bad
>intention, but he doesn't, and he uses the ugliest C++ code possible.
>So it makes me think that the article is malicious and it is pure
>marketing
>stuff.
>
>
>Regards,
>Fernando.
>
>
>On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:34 AM, Fernando Pelliccioni
><fpellicci...@gmail.com
>> wrote:
>
>> This is a misleading propaganda against C++. I think it's pure
>marketing.
>> I hope this code ugly C++ was not on purpose.
>>
>> I think it would be fair that you enable comments on the website so I
>can
>> show how to code in real C++. Do you dare to discuss seriously?
>>
>> If the feedback is in a different place (mailing list), the reader of
>the
>> article does not have a chance to really compare the two languages.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Fernando Pelliccioni,
>>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>_______________________________________________
>Rust-dev mailing list
>Rust-dev@mozilla.org
>https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity._______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
