>I can't help but notice that C++ community has a strong bias against garbage collection. [...]
>Why can't you acknowledge that there are problems that have GC as the only and best solution?
Your prelude and the followup question is not well-formed.
C++ programmers do not have a bias against GC as a specific problem-solving technique. In fact, expert C++ programmers can embrace GC so much that they can write an entire virtual machine[1] with GC and a DSL[2] for that vm that takes advantage of memory safety. Both the CLR vm and the (original) C# compiler were written by C++ programmers.
What the C++ community doesn't want is GC in the C++ base language itself or the standard runtime. That's a very different concept from a generalized "C++ bias against GC".
In other words, the following is unacceptable:
std::string x = "Hello, " + fullname; // cpu cycles spent on GC
Those cpu cycles spent on constantly checking if "x" is no longer reachable is cpu power that's taken away from rendering frames of a 60fps game, or computing numeric equations or high speed quantitative trading. C++ programmers don't want GC as a global runtime that you can't opt out of. Also, global GC often requires 2x-3x the memory footprint of working memory which is extremely wasteful for the resource constrained domains that C++ is often used in.
Herb Sutter's presentation is compatible with "pseudo-GC-when-you-need-it" without adding GC to the entire C++ standard runtime.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Runtime
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)
>Why can't you acknowledge that there are problems that have GC as the only and best solution?
Your prelude and the followup question is not well-formed.
C++ programmers do not have a bias against GC as a specific problem-solving technique. In fact, expert C++ programmers can embrace GC so much that they can write an entire virtual machine[1] with GC and a DSL[2] for that vm that takes advantage of memory safety. Both the CLR vm and the (original) C# compiler were written by C++ programmers.
What the C++ community doesn't want is GC in the C++ base language itself or the standard runtime. That's a very different concept from a generalized "C++ bias against GC".
In other words, the following is unacceptable:
Those cpu cycles spent on constantly checking if "x" is no longer reachable is cpu power that's taken away from rendering frames of a 60fps game, or computing numeric equations or high speed quantitative trading. C++ programmers don't want GC as a global runtime that you can't opt out of. Also, global GC often requires 2x-3x the memory footprint of working memory which is extremely wasteful for the resource constrained domains that C++ is often used in.Herb Sutter's presentation is compatible with "pseudo-GC-when-you-need-it" without adding GC to the entire C++ standard runtime.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Language_Runtime
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_Sharp_(programming_language)