Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 3 years ago.
Improve this question
Many embedded engineers use c++, but some argue it's bad because it's "object oriented"?
Is it true that being object oriented makes it bad for embedded systems, and if so, why is that really the case?
Edit: Here's a quick reference for those who asked:
so we
prefer people not to use divide ..., malloc ..., or other object
oriented practice that carry large
penalty.
I guess the question is are objects considered heavyweight in the context of an embedded system? Some of the answers here suggest they are and some suggest they're not.
Whilst I'm not sure it answers your question, I can summarise the reasons my previous companies source code was pure C.
It's firstly worth summarising the situation:
we wanted to write a large amount of "core" code that would be highly portable across a large number of ARM embedded systems (mostly mid-range mobile phones; both smart phones and ones running RTOSs of various ages)
the platforms generally had a workable C compiler, though some for example didn't support floating point "double"s.
in some cases the platform had a reasonable implementation of the standard library, but in many cases it didn't.
a C++ compiler was not available on most platforms, and where it was available support for the C++ standard library, STL or exceptions was highly variable.
debuggers often weren't available (a serial port you could send debug printfs to was considered a luxury)
we always had access to a reasonable amount of memory, but often not to a reasonable malloc() implementation
Given that, we worked entirely in C, and even then only a restricted set of C 89. The resulting code was highly portable. We often used object orientated concepts though.
These days "embedded" is a very wide definition. It covers everything from 8 bit microprocessors with no RAM or C compilers upto what are essentially high end PCs (albeit not running Microsoft Windows) - I don't know where your project/company sits in that range.
Taking your quote at face value, dynamic memory allocation is completely separate concept from object-oriented software design, so it's outright false. You can have object-oriented design, and not use dynamic memory allocation.
In fact, you can do OO in C to an extent (that's what Linux kernel does). The real reason that many embedded developers don't like C++ is that it's very complex and it is hard to write straight-forward and predictable code in it. Linus has a good recent rant on why he does not like C++ (it's better and more reasoned than his old one, I promise). Probably most folks just don't articulate it very well.
What makes you say that C++ is Object Oriented? C++ is multiparadigm, and not all of the features that C++ provides are useful for the embedded market due to their overheads. (So... Just don't use those features! Problem solved!)
Object Oriented is great for embedded systems. It focuses a lot on encapsulation, data hiding, and code sharing. One can have Object Oriented embedded systems without division or dynamic memory allocation.
Division and dynamic memory allocation are enemies of embedded systems regardless of Object Oriented, Data Oriented or procedural programming. These concepts may or may not be used in the implementation of Object Oriented designs.
Object Oriented allows for a UART class to transmit instances of Message objects without knowing the content of the Message objects. A Message could be the base class and have several descendant classes.
The C++ language helps promote safe coding in embedded systems by allowing constructors, copy constructors, and destructors, which would only remembered in the highest disciplined C language embedded systems.
Exception handling is also a pain to get working in the C language. The C++ provides better facilities embedded into the language.
The C++ language provides templates for writing common code to handle different data types. A classic example is a ring buffer or circular queue. In the C language, one would have to use "pointers to void" so that any object could be passed. C++ offers a template so one can write a Circular_Queue class that works with different data types and has better compile-time type checking.
Inheritance allows for better code sharing. The shared code is factored into a base class and child classes can be created that share the same functionality; through inheritance.
The C language profides function pointers. The C++ languages provides facilities for function objects (function pointers with attributes).
Sorry, I just don't like those people who limit embedded systems to C language because of rumors and little knowledge and experience with C++.
Object-oriented design by itself isn't bad. The answer lies in your quote. Especially in real-time embedded systems, you want to make your code as light and efficient as possible. The things mentioned in your quote (objects, division, dynamic memory allocation) are relatively heavyweight and can usually be replaced with simpler alternatives (for eg. using bit-manipulation to approximate division, allocating memory on the stack or with static pools) to improve performance in time-critical systems.
Nothing about 'object-oriented' is bad for embedded systems. OO is just a way of thinking about software.
What's bad for embedded systems is that, in general, they have less sophisticated debuggers, and C++ does a lot of crazy stuff 'behind your back', so to speak. Those pieces of hard-to-get-access-to code will drive you nuts.
C++ was designed with the philosophy of don't pay for what you don't use. So apart from the lack of good embedded compilers, there's no real reason.
Maybe CFront could have compiled C++ into C, which has a myriad of compilers...
Edit: The Comeau compiler transforms C++ into plain C, so the no-compiler argument doesn't hold.
As others have noted, 'embedded' encompasses a broad and varied range of hardware/software options. But...
The quote you give will give microcontroller embedded types shivers. Dynamic allocation is a no-no, if you have an error, you crash the system in unpredictable ways. Divides are heavily discouraged since they take forever in execution time. Objects are only discouraged insofar as they tend to carry lot's of 'stuff' around with them, all that 'stuff' takes up space, and microcontrollers don't have any.
I think of embedded as being projects that are small and specific, you don't worry much about extensibility or portability. You write clean code in C that does only and exactly what you want your device to do, reliably. You choose one chip family so you can move your (almost the) same code among different hardware options with minor tweaks to the port your writing too or initialization of configuration fuses.
So, you don't need to define
4 wheeled Transportation
Car
Toyota
Since you're only working on Toyotas. And the difference in accelerations between a Camry and Corolla are stored as constants in a register.
As said above, it's what object-oriented / malloc / math do behind your back that carries a penalty - both in code size and CPU cycles which are usually in short supply in embedded.
As an example, including the sqrt() function in a loop added so much overhead in recursive calculations that we had to remove it and work a fast approximation around it, using a lookup table if I remember correctly.
By all means use any tools/langauges you like, but you need to at least be able to lift the lid and check just how much extra code is being generated behind your back.
Programming is always about using the right tool for the job. There are no pat answers, and that is especially true in the embedded world. If you want to become skilled in embedded development you will be just as intimately familier with C as you are with C++.
First, let's pick this apart:
so we prefer people not to use divide ..., malloc ..., or other object oriented practice that carry large penalty.
Division and malloc are not unique to object oriented programming, they are present in procedural languages too (and presumably functional, and whatever other paradigms you might think of).
Division and malloc can be a problem on an embedded system if the system has sufficiently limited resources, that much is true, but they will be a problem no matter what programming paradigm you use.
Onto the main issue "Is object orientation bad for embedded systems?".
Firstly, 'object orientation' is quite a broad spectrum. Some people have conflicting ideas about what it actually means. There's a minimalist definition where an object is essentially just a bundle of functions (or 'methods') and data, and there's a more 'purist' definition that also includes features like inheritance and polymorphism.
If you take the minimalist definition of OOP then no - OOP is not bad for embedded systems. It does depend on the language, but it's entirely possible for using objects to be just as cheap as not using objects (and possibly cheaper in some situations). In C++, an object (without virtual methods, which I'll get to in a moment) takes up no more memory than its individual fields would if they weren't part of an object. In C++, (the size of) an object is equal to the sum of (the size of) its parts.
However, if you take the 'puritan' view of OOP and insist on including inheritance and polymorphism then the answer is 'yes, it is bad'. Inheritance is perhaps less of a concern (depending on the language), but polymorphism via virtual methods is a definite memory chewer. virtual functions are usually implemented by maintaining a 'vtable' (a virtual method table) that stores pointers to the correct functions, and each object must store a pointer to its vtable to enable dynamic dispatch (the process of calling virtual functions) to work properly. There are circumstances in which inheritance can use more memory than solutions that don't require inheritance - typically when comparing inheritance to composition, composition sometimes uses less memory.
One last point, particularly for the case of C++ (since that's usually what people mean when they talk about using OOP on embedded systems). People often say that "C++ does strange things behind your back" - it does do some things without those things being immediately obvious when looking at the code, such as producing the vtables I mentioned earlier, however it doesn't do these things "behind your back" in an attempt to thwart you, it does these things because they are simply needed to implement the features being used. Overall there are very few detrimental things that happen 'behind the scenes', and the things it does aren't exactly arcane or mysterious, they're generally quite well known and they're things the programmer ought to be aware of when programming for an embedded system. If you don't know about them then you don't know your tools properly and you should research them some more.
Having said all that, remember that people are free to be selective with which language features they do and don't use. It makes absolute sense to avoid the more expensive features like virtual functions, but it doesn't make sense to forgo an entire language (like C++) simply because it has a few expensive entirely optional features (like virtual functions) - that's just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
How should I learn C++? I hear that the language gives enough rope to shoot myself in the head, so should I treat every C++ line I write as a potential minefiled?
How should I learn C++?
Refer to:
Books to refer for learning OOP through C++
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/631793/good-book-to-learn-c-from
The Definitive C++ Book Guide and List
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1122921/suggested-c-books
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1686906/what-is-a-very-practical-c-book
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/681551/a-c-book-that-covers-non-syntax-related-problems
I hear that the language gives enough
rope to shoout myself in the head, so
should I treat every C++ line I write
as a potential minefiled?
A C++ statement can do either what you want it to do, or something else. This depends on your understanding of what that C++ statement means. But this is not specific to this language.
By learning the language, and using techniques for building correct software (like Object Oriented design, especially Design by Contract, and testing techniques), you will be able to guarantee that your program behaves as you intended it to.
I love your metaphor! What Stroustrup actually said was:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bjarne_Stroustrup
C makes it easy to shoot yourself in
the foot; C++ makes it harder, but
when you do it blows your whole leg
off.
This was many years ago. I started learning C++ in ca. 1991 and it really was a minefield. There were no common libraries, no debuggers and the AT&T approach used a C code generator. There are now many good IDEs which support C++.
Personally I moved to Java because I find it a cleaner language but C++ is fine as long as you don't try to be tricky. Avoid native C constructs where there are existing class libraries (Stroustrup initially did not provide a String class as he though it a useful "rite of passage" to have to write one!) Now you can use a proven one.
I'm assuming you have no choice in the language. How you go about it depends on where you are coming from. C++ is not the easiest of the object-oriented languages to start on and Stroustrup's book is not necessarily the best intro.
UPDATE the OP is worried about blowing themselves up when learning the language. Generally it's a good idea to start with a subset of what one will do later. I assumed the OP is worried about:
Things which you have to know and use whatever level you program at (such as destructors)
Things which add additional complexity to the learning process and can be shelved until later (such as multiple inheritance)
what follows are some places where I blew myself up... They are not subjective, they happened!
There are some up-front gotchas that don't exist in Java or C#.
destructors. You have to manage your own memory. Failing to write destructors will blow your fingers and toes off.
equality. You will have to write an equals method (in simple Java you may get away without it)
copy constructor. Ditto. a = b will invoke this. Bites you in the bottom.
And I'd suggest avoiding multiple inheritance unless you really need it. Then avoid it anyway.
And avoid operator overloading. It looks cute to write:
vector1 = vector2 + vector3;
but
vector1 = vector2.plus(vector3);
is just as clear, only a few more characters, and you can search for it.
Well, it's not a minefield.
Really, the most problems are related to anything related to pointers, so you'll have to understand them (which it's not easy at first) and be careful when using them.
I think it's more a question of experience, having all the basics clear and trying to get a clear design since the beggining.
More than a minefield, I think it's like going to the most dangeours neighbourhood in your town. Yes, it's dangerous, but only for the ones without the attitude. :-D
I would say that that C++ is a challenging environment, if not a minefield. The fundamental issue is that problem symptoms and problem causes are not always easy to tie up. As Khelben has said one major reason for that is that we have pointers to deal with and hence we can do quite a lot of damage when pointers are not pointing where we think they are.
So you need to pay special attention when dealing with arrays and pointers, out-by-one errors can result in memory corruption and these then result in interesting problem manifestations.
Every formal language is a minefield. There're less mines in managed environments. For instance, in C# if you overblow an array you won't cause someone else's remote function to do strange things. You won't have code run differently in tests and prod because someone forgot to initialize a variable in constructor.
However, these are the easy ones. You learn to avoid them, and then you stay with the real mines, which are there in every language.
More specifically, these are some of the most important points when moving to C++:
always initialize variables. even theoretical possibility of having your program logic depend on what was in the memory beforehand is a nightmare.
dependencies: avoid data members of other compound types (classes) without pimpl idiom. This will make your users exposed to the inner workings of the types you use, and increase compilation time dramatically. Dependencies are your enemy.
in C++, you can optimize for performance in ridiculously huge number of ways. don't. Unless you are in the innermost loop of a heavy math software, and even then don't.
avoid DLLs on windows. They don't work with singletons, causing problems to popular libraries.
use boost, shared pointers whenever you can. avoid reinventing the wheel and regular pointers.
use std::string, smart containers instead of arrays. These are dangerous. It will be faster than managed containers anyway.
use RAII. This one is priceless.
prefer data members to inheritance, or you will expose the base type definition to your type's users.
learn to avoid nested includes with forward declarations.
How should I learn C++?
depends. where are you coming from? anyway, I'd suggest:
use an up-to-date compiler such as gcc-4.4 or 4.5
C++0x is worth it for the type inference alone (local variables don't need explicit type designations)
write small, standalone, short-lived utilities (try porting such tools written in other languages)
STL has complex parts, but the basic things are easy, don't shy away from it. FMPOV it embodies the spirit of C++
use state-of-the-art C++ libraries: stuff like Boost.Foreach, Boost.Tuple, Boost.Regex or Boost.Optional turn C++ into serious competition in the scripting department
when you're comfortable:
learn to generalize your code with templates
learn to use RAII
then:
add C libraries to the mix. this might be the first time you'll need to tinker with pointers and casts!
add OOP if you feel like it
should I treat every C++ line I write as a potential minefiled?
be cautious, but don't worry too much. it's true that you can't know what a + b means without knowing the whole program containing such an expression because of operator overloads and argument-dependent lookup, and I've seen many people whine about it. a killing counter-argument is that you cannot really know what a->plus(b) does in Java or a scripting language in the face of inheritance: all methods are virtual, yoyo effect in extremis! (this does kill me in large codebases with rampant inheritance written in languages w/o ADL or operator overloading!)
anecdotes from my experience learning basics of C and C++:
C: unless you do something really, really, really stupid, the program will compile just fine, and SIGSEGV or SIGBUS as soon as you run it
C++: unless you do something really, really, really "clever", the program will either fail to compile, or compile and do what you mean (a mantra Perl "inherited" from Interlisp as I've been told).
a ranty post scriptum:
C++ can be used as a much higher-level language than C: whereas you can't do almost anything beyond simple arithmetic without pointers in C, it's possible to write complete programs in C++ without a pointer in sight, save for char **argv.
there's a whole class of programs that can be implemented in C++ using it as a "scripting" language with unparalleled runtime speed and simple runtime environment (the "dll hell" is nothing compared to the volatility of real scripting languages).
however, the "scripting language" cloak is a leaky abstraction: it's built from native C++ mechanisms such as ADL, operator overloading and templates, and that has its price. get ready for abysmal compile times and unintelligible error messages. OTOH, at least the error messages can be greatly improved with tools like STLfilt, and I think it's well worth it overall.
one thing where C++ really shines in contrast to environments such as Java (perhaps C# too? don't know that one that well) is destructors (vs finalizers and GC). it's one of the pillars of the "scriptiness" of the language. whereas GC adds a whole level of semantic complexity (things don't cease to exist as soon as they're inaccessible from the program) and syntactic verbiage and duplication (finally), destructors are the workhorse of natural semantics and obviate code duplication that's unavoidable with finally.
BTW, "enough rope to shoot myself in the head" almost killed me. I think I'll borrow it. ;)
C++ has some pitfalls certainly, but writting safe code is certainly possible.
Some things to think about. There are far from the only things for writting safe C++ code but they seem like a good start.
Use std::string and std::vector to store strings and collections rather than C style strings and native arrays. They are much easier to get right.
When you allocate an object using new always think about who owns the pointer to this memory and is responsible for deleting it. If you can't think of a single owner for the data that manages it's lifetime, then either rethink your design or think about using a "smart pointer" to manage the lifetime.
Prefer indexing into arrays rather than using pointer arithmetic where possible. Whenever you index into an array every time ask your self "How do I know that this index can only index a valid index in the array".
If a class has a pointer to some data then write methods to act on that data. Don't write methods that return that pointer or at some point you'll end up using the pointer after the data has been deleted. (Not always possible but something to aim for)
If you write simple code that uses strings and vectors and as much as possible encapsule pointers as members of classes that both manage the lifetime of the data and provide the methods that act on that data then that's a good strarting point.
As others have said, read effective c++ and other books.
In C++, foot shoots YOU.
The question is do you need it for anything? If you want to make game code, 3d tools, or something similar you pretty much have to have it. If not, you don't. The errors people are afraid of are seldom big killers but there are plenty of other things that will come up if you make a large enough project.
You may find this spoof interview with Bjarne Stroustrup to be enlightening:
http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/joke/cpp.htm
The syntax of C++ is easy, just like Java or C# with pointers. So learning C++ is fast.
The hard thing is that when it comes to a project, C++ is harder to use and more error prone compared to Java or C#. It is just too flexible and the programmer is responsible for too many things.
In a 100 lines of code, you don't need to worry about memory and null pointers at all as you can find them quickly. But when it comes to 10000 lines of code, memory management could be hard. The exception mechanism in C++ is also weak. Thirdly, you need to worry the null pointer problem in C++ in a big project.
I look at the dilemma from a different perspective. The more discipline you have in development the faster you can develop quality robust code. Assembly requires more discipline than C. C requires more discipline than C++.
Don't worry about hanging yourself, blowing your foot or leg off. Just work on improving your quality develop process. For example, a code review will help regardless of the language. Unit testing and test frameworks will also save some bloodshed. Everything boils down to project deadlines and money.
When programming a CPU intensive or GPU intensive application on the iPhone or other portable hardware, you have to make wise algorithmic decisions to make your code fast.
But even great algorithm choices can be slow if the language you're using performs more poorly than another.
Is there any hard data comparing Objective-C to C++, specifically on the iPhone but maybe just on the Mac desktop, for performance of various similar language aspects? I am very familiar with this article comparing C and Objective-C, but this is a larger question of comparing two object oriented languages to each other.
For example, is a C++ vtable lookup really faster than an Obj-C message? How much faster? Threading, polymorphism, sorting, etc. Before I go on a quest to build a project with duplicate object models and various test code, I want to know if anybody has already done this and what the results where. This type of testing and comparison is a project in and of itself and can take a considerable amount of time. Maybe this isn't one project, but two and only the outputs can be compared.
I'm looking for hard data, not evangelism. Like many of you I love and hate both languages for various reasons. Furthermore, if there is someone out there actively pursuing this same thing I'd be interesting in pitching in some code to see the end results, and I'm sure others would help out too. My guess is that they both have strengths and weaknesses, my goal is to find out precisely what they are so that they can be avoided/exploited in real-world scenarios.
Mike Ash has some hard numbers for performance of various Objective-C method calls versus C and C++ in his post "Performance Comparisons of Common Operations". Also, this post
by Savoy Software is an interesting read when it comes to tuning the performance of an iPhone application by using Objective-C++.
I tend to prefer the clean, descriptive syntax of Objective-C over Objective-C++, and have not found the language itself to be the source of my performance bottlenecks. I even tend to do things that I know sacrifice a little bit of performance if they make my code much more maintainable.
Yes, well written C++ is considerably faster. If you're writing performance critical programs and your C++ is not as fast as C (or within a few percent), something's wrong. If your ObjC implementation is as fast as C, then something's usually wrong -- i.e. the program is likely a bad example of ObjC OOD because it probably uses some 'dirty' tricks to step below the abstraction layer it is operating within, such as direct ivar accesses.
The Mike Ash 'comparison' is very misleading -- I would never recommend the approach to compare execution times of programs you have written, or recommend it to compare C vs C++ vs ObjC. The results presented are provided from a test with compiler optimizations disabled. A program compiled with optimizations disabled is rarely relevant when you are measuring execution times. To view it as a benchmark which compares C++ against Objective-C is flawed. The test also compares individual features, rather than entire, real world optimized implementations -- individual features are combined in very different ways with both languages. This is far from a realistic performance benchmark for optimized implementations. Examples: With optimizations enabled, IMP cache is as slow as virtual function calls. Static dispatch (as opposed to dynamic dispatch, e.g. using virtual) and calls to known C++ types (where dynamic dispatch may be bypassed) may be optimized aggressively. This process is called devirtualization, and when it is used, a member function which is declared virtual may even be inlined. In the case of the Mike Ash test where many calls are made to member functions which have been declared virtual and have empty bodies: these calls are optimized away entirely when the type is known because the compiler sees the implementation and is able to determine dynamic dispatch is unnecessary. The compiler can also eliminate calls to malloc in optimized builds (favoring stack storage). So, enabling compiler optimizations in any of C, C++, or Objective-C can produce dramatic differences in execution times.
That's not to say the presented results are entirely useless. You could get some useful information about external APIs if you want to determine if there are measurable differences between the times they spend in pthread_create or +[NSObject alloc] on one platform or architecture versus another. Of course, these two examples will be using optimized implementations in your test (unless you happen to be developing them). But for comparing one language to another in programs you compile… the presented results are useless with optimizations disabled.
Object Creation
Consider also object creation in ObjC - every object is allocated dynamically (e.g. on the heap). With C++, objects may be created on the stack (e.g. approximately as fast as creating a C struct and calling a simple function in many cases), on the heap, or as elements of abstract data types. Each time you allocate and free (e.g. via malloc/free), you may introduce a lock. When you create a C struct or C++ object on the stack, no lock is required (although interior members may use heap allocations) and it often costs just a few instructions or a few instructions plus a function call.
As well, ObjC objects are reference counted instances. The actual need for an object to be a std::shared_ptr in performance critical C++ is very rare. It's not necessary or desirable in C++ to make every instance a shared, reference counted instance. You have much more control over ownership and lifetime with C++.
Arrays and Collections
Arrays and many collections in C and C++ also use strongly typed containers and contiguous memory. Since the address of the next element's members are often known, the optimizer can do much more, and you have great cache and memory locality. With ObjC, that's far from reality for standard objects (e.g. NSObject).
Dispatch
Regarding methods, many C++ implementations use few virtual/dynamic calls, particularly in highly optimized programs. These are static method calls and fodder for the optimizers.
With ObjC methods, each method call (objc message send) is dynamic, and is consequently a firewall for the optimizer. Ultimately, that results in many restrictions or inconveniences regarding what you can and cannot do to keep performance at a minimum when writing performance critical ObjC. This may result in larger methods, IMP caching, frequent use of C.
Some realtime applications cannot use any ObjC messaging in their render paths. None -- audio rendering is a good example of this. ObjC dispatch is simply not designed for realtime purposes; Allocations and locks may happen behind the scenes when messaging objects, making the complexity/time of objc messaging unpredictable enough that the audio rendering may miss its deadline.
Other Features
C++ also provides generics/template implementations for many of its libraries. These optimize very well. They are typesafe, and a lot of inlining and optimizations may be made with templates (consider it polymorphism, optimization, and specialization which takes place at compilation). C++ adds several features which just are not available or comparable in strict ObjC. Trying to directly compare langs, objects, and libraries which are very different is not so useful -- it's a very small subset of actual realizations. It's better to expand the question to a library/framework or real program, considering many aspects of design and implementation.
Other Points
C and C++ symbols can be more easily removed and optimized away in various stages of the build (stripping, dead code elimination, inlining and early inlining, as well as Link Time Optimization). The benefits of this include reduced binary sizes, reduced launch/load times, reduced memory consumption, etc.. For a single app, that may not be such a big deal; but if you reuse a lot of code, and you should, then your shared libraries could add a lot of unnecessary weight to the program, if implemented ObjC -- unless you are prepared to jump through some flaming hoops. So scalability and reuse are also factors in medium/large projects, and groups where reuse is high.
Included Libraries
ObjC library implementors also optimize for the environment, so its library implementors can make use of some language and environment features to offer optimized implementations. Although there are some pretty significant restrictions when writing an optimized program in pure ObjC, some highly optimized implementations exist in Cocoa. This is one of Cocoa's strong points, although the C++ standard library (what some people call the STL) is no slouch either. Cocoa operates at a much higher level of abstraction than C++ -- if you don't know well what you're doing (or should be doing), operating closer to the metal can really cost you. Falling back on to a good library implementation if you are not an expert in some domain is a good thing, unless you are really prepared to learn. As well, Cocoa's environments are limited; you can find implementations/optimizations which make better use of the OS.
If you're writing optimized programs and have experience doing so in both C++ and ObjC, clean C++ implementations will often be twice as fast or faster than clean ObjC (yes, you can compare against Cocoa). If you know how to optimize, you can often do better than higher level, general purpose abstractions. Although, some optimized C++ implementations will be as fast as or slower than Cocoa's (e.g. my initial attempt at file I/O was slower than Cocoa's -- primarily because the C++ implementation initializes its memory).
A lot of it comes down to the language features you are familiar with. I use both langs, they both have different strengths and models/patterns. They complement each other quite well, and there are great libraries for both. If you're implementing a complex, performance critical program, correct use of C++'s features and libraries will give you much more control and provide significant advantages for optimization, such that in the right hands, "several times faster" is a good default expectation (don't expect to win every time, or without some work, however). Remember, it takes years to understand C++ well enough to really reach that point.
I keep the majority of my performance critical paths as C++, but also recognize that ObjC is also a very good solution for some problems, and that there are some very good libraries available.
It's very hard to collect "hard data" for this that's not misguiding.
The biggest problem with doing a feature-to-feature comparison like you suggest is that the two languages encourage very different coding styles. Objective-C is a dynamic language with duck typing, where typical C++ usage is static. The same object-oriented architecture problem would likely have very different ideal solutions using C++ or Objective-C.
My feeling (as I have programmed much in both languages, mostly on huge projects): To maximize Objective-C performance, it has to be written very close to C. Whereas with C++, it's possible to make much more use of the language without any performance penalty compared to C.
Which one is better? I don't know. For pure performance, C++ will always have the edge. But the OOP style of Objective-C definitely has its merits. I definitely think it is easier to keep a sane architecture with it.
This really isn't something that can be answered in general as it really depends on how you use the language features. Both languages will have things that they are fast at, things that they are slow at, and things that are sometimes fast and sometimes slow. It really depends on what you use and how you use it. The only way to be certain is to profile your code.
In Objective C you can also write c++ code, so it might be easier to code in Objective C for the most part, and if you find something that doesn't perform well in it, then you can have a go at writting a c++ version of it and seeing if that helps (C++ tends to optimize better at compile time). Objective C will be easier to use if APIs you are interfacing with are also written in it, plus you might find it's style of OOP is easier or more flexible.
In the end, you should go with what you know you can write safe, robust code in and if you find an area that needs special attention from the other language, then you can swap to that. X-Code does allow you to compile both in the same project.
I have a couple of tests I did on an iPhone 3G almost 2 years ago, there was no documentation or hard numbers around in those days. Not sure how valid they still are but the source code is posted and attached.
This isn't a very extensive test, I was mainly interested in NSArray vs C Array for iterating a large number of objects.
http://memo.tv/nsarray_vs_c_array_performance_comparison
http://memo.tv/nsarray_vs_c_array_performance_comparison_part_ii_makeobjectsperformselector
You can see the C Array is much faster at high iterations. Since then I've realized that the bottleneck is probably not the iteration of the NSArray but the sending of the message. I wanted to try methodForSelector and calling the methods directly to see how big the difference would be but never got round to it. According to Mike Ash's benchmarks it's just over 5x faster.
I don't have hard data for Objective C, but I do have a good place to look for C++.
C++ started as C with Classes according to Bjarne Stroustroup in his reflection on the early years of C++ (http://www2.research.att.com/~bs/hopl2.pdf), so C++ can be thought of (like Objective C) as pushing C to its limits for object orientation.
What are those limits? In the 1994-1997 time frame, a lot of researchers figured out that object-orientation came at a cost due to dynamic binding, e.g. when C++ functions are marked virtual and there may/may not be children classes that override these functions. (In Java and C#, all functions expect ctors are inherently virtual, and there isnt' much you can do about it.) In "A Study of Devirtualization Techniques for a Java Just-In-Time Compiler" from researchers at IBM Research Tokyo, they contrast the techniques used to deal with this, including one from Urz Hölzle and Gerald Aigner. Urz Hölzle, in a separate paper with Karel Driesen, had shown that on average 5.7% of time in C++ programs (and up to ~50%) was spent in calling virtual functions (e.g. vtables + thunks). He later worked with some Smalltalk researachers in what ended up the Java HotSpot VM to solve these problems in OO. Some of these features are being backported to C++ (e.g. 'protected' and Exception handling).
As I mentioned, C++ is static typed where Objective C is duck typed. The performance difference in execution (but not lines of code) probably is a result of this difference.
This study says to really get the performance in a CPU intensive game, you have to use C. The linked article is complete with a XCode project that you can run.
I believe the bottom line is: Use Objective-C where you must interact with the iPhone's functions (after all, putting trampolines everywhere can't be good for anyone), but when it comes to loops, things like vector object classes, or intensive array access, stick with C++ STL or C arrays to get good performance.
I mean it would be totally silly to see position = [[Vector3 alloc] init] ;. You're just asking for a performance hit if you use references counts on basic objects like a position vector.
yes. c++ reign supreme in performance/expresiveness/resource tradeoff.
"I'm looking for hard data, not evangelism". google is your best friend.
obj-c nsstring is swapped with c++'s by apple enginneers for performance. in a resource constrained devices, only c++ cuts it as a MAINSTREAM oop language.
NSString stringWithFormat is slow
obj-c oop abstraction is deconstructed into procedural-based c-structs for performance, otherwise a MAGNITUDE order slower than java! the author is also aware of message caching - yet no-go. so modeling lots of small players/enemies objects is done in oop with c++ or else, lots of Procedural structs with a simple OOP wrapper around it with obj-c. there can be one paradigm that equates Procedural + Object-Oriented Programming = obj-c.
http://ejourneyman.wordpress.com/2008/04/23/writing-a-ray-tracer-for-cocoa-objective-c/
I'm not asking this question because of the merits of garbage collection first of all. My main reason for asking this is that I do know that Bjarne Stroustrup has said that C++ will have a garbage collector at some point in time.
With that said, why hasn't it been added? There are already some garbage collectors for C++. Is this just one of those "easier said than done" type things? Or are there other reasons it hasn't been added (and won't be added in C++11)?
Cross links:
Garbage collectors for C++
Just to clarify, I understand the reasons why C++ didn't have a garbage collector when it was first created. I'm wondering why the collector can't be added in.
Implicit garbage collection could have been added in, but it just didn't make the cut. Probably due to not just implementation complications, but also due to people not being able to come to a general consensus fast enough.
A quote from Bjarne Stroustrup himself:
I had hoped that a garbage collector
which could be optionally enabled
would be part of C++0x, but there were
enough technical problems that I have
to make do with just a detailed
specification of how such a collector
integrates with the rest of the
language, if provided. As is the case
with essentially all C++0x features,
an experimental implementation exists.
There is a good discussion of the topic here.
General overview:
C++ is very powerful and allows you to do almost anything. For this reason it doesn't automatically push many things onto you that might impact performance. Garbage collection can be easily implemented with smart pointers (objects that wrap pointers with a reference count, which auto delete themselves when the reference count reaches 0).
C++ was built with competitors in mind that did not have garbage collection. Efficiency was the main concern that C++ had to fend off criticism from in comparison to C and others.
There are 2 types of garbage collection...
Explicit garbage collection:
C++0x has garbage collection via pointers created with shared_ptr
If you want it you can use it, if you don't want it you aren't forced into using it.
For versions before C++0x, boost:shared_ptr exists and serves the same purpose.
Implicit garbage collection:
It does not have transparent garbage collection though. It will be a focus point for future C++ specs though.
Why Tr1 doesn't have implicit garbage collection?
There are a lot of things that tr1 of C++0x should have had, Bjarne Stroustrup in previous interviews stated that tr1 didn't have as much as he would have liked.
To add to the debate here.
There are known issues with garbage collection, and understanding them helps understanding why there is none in C++.
1. Performance ?
The first complaint is often about performance, but most people don't really realize what they are talking about. As illustrated by Martin Beckett the problem may not be performance per se, but the predictability of performance.
There are currently 2 families of GC that are widely deployed:
Mark-And-Sweep kind
Reference-Counting kind
The Mark And Sweep is faster (less impact on overall performance) but it suffers from a "freeze the world" syndrome: i.e. when the GC kicks in, everything else is stopped until the GC has made its cleanup. If you wish to build a server that answers in a few milliseconds... some transactions will not live up to your expectations :)
The problem of Reference Counting is different: reference-counting adds overhead, especially in Multi-Threading environments because you need to have an atomic count. Furthermore there is the problem of reference cycles so you need a clever algorithm to detect those cycles and eliminate them (generally implement by a "freeze the world" too, though less frequent). In general, as of today, this kind (even though normally more responsive or rather, freezing less often) is slower than the Mark And Sweep.
I have seen a paper by Eiffel implementers that were trying to implement a Reference Counting Garbage Collector that would have a similar global performance to Mark And Sweep without the "Freeze The World" aspect. It required a separate thread for the GC (typical). The algorithm was a bit frightening (at the end) but the paper made a good job of introducing the concepts one at a time and showing the evolution of the algorithm from the "simple" version to the full-fledged one. Recommended reading if only I could put my hands back on the PDF file...
2. Resources Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII)
It's a common idiom in C++ that you will wrap the ownership of resources within an object to ensure that they are properly released. It's mostly used for memory since we don't have garbage collection, but it's also useful nonetheless for many other situations:
locks (multi-thread, file handle, ...)
connections (to a database, another server, ...)
The idea is to properly control the lifetime of the object:
it should be alive as long as you need it
it should be killed when you're done with it
The problem of GC is that if it helps with the former and ultimately guarantees that later... this "ultimate" may not be sufficient. If you release a lock, you'd really like that it be released now, so that it does not block any further calls!
Languages with GC have two work arounds:
don't use GC when stack allocation is sufficient: it's normally for performance issues, but in our case it really helps since the scope defines the lifetime
using construct... but it's explicit (weak) RAII while in C++ RAII is implicit so that the user CANNOT unwittingly make the error (by omitting the using keyword)
3. Smart Pointers
Smart pointers often appear as a silver bullet to handle memory in C++. Often times I have heard: we don't need GC after all, since we have smart pointers.
One could not be more wrong.
Smart pointers do help: auto_ptr and unique_ptr use RAII concepts, extremely useful indeed. They are so simple that you can write them by yourself quite easily.
When one need to share ownership however it gets more difficult: you might share among multiple threads and there are a few subtle issues with the handling of the count. Therefore, one naturally goes toward shared_ptr.
It's great, that's what Boost for after all, but it's not a silver bullet. In fact, the main issue with shared_ptr is that it emulates a GC implemented by Reference Counting but you need to implement the cycle detection all by yourself... Urg
Of course there is this weak_ptr thingy, but I have unfortunately already seen memory leaks despite the use of shared_ptr because of those cycles... and when you are in a Multi Threaded environment, it's extremely difficult to detect!
4. What's the solution ?
There is no silver bullet, but as always, it's definitely feasible. In the absence of GC one need to be clear on ownership:
prefer having a single owner at one given time, if possible
if not, make sure that your class diagram does not have any cycle pertaining to ownership and break them with subtle application of weak_ptr
So indeed, it would be great to have a GC... however it's no trivial issue. And in the mean time, we just need to roll up our sleeves.
What type? should it be optimised for embedded washing machine controllers, cell phones, workstations or supercomputers?
Should it prioritise gui responsiveness or server loading?
should it use lots of memory or lots of CPU?
C/c++ is used in just too many different circumstances.
I suspect something like boost smart pointers will be enough for most users
Edit - Automatic garbage collectors aren't so much a problem of performance (you can always buy more server) it's a question of predicatable performance.
Not knowing when the GC is going to kick in is like employing a narcoleptic airline pilot, most of the time they are great - but when you really need responsiveness!
One of the biggest reasons that C++ doesn't have built in garbage collection is that getting garbage collection to play nice with destructors is really, really hard. As far as I know, nobody really knows how to solve it completely yet. There are alot of issues to deal with:
deterministic lifetimes of objects (reference counting gives you this, but GC doesn't. Although it may not be that big of a deal).
what happens if a destructor throws when the object is being garbage collected? Most languages ignore this exception, since theres really no catch block to be able to transport it to, but this is probably not an acceptable solution for C++.
How to enable/disable it? Naturally it'd probably be a compile time decision but code that is written for GC vs code that is written for NOT GC is going to be very different and probably incompatible. How do you reconcile this?
These are just a few of the problems faced.
Though this is an old question, there's still one problem that I don't see anybody having addressed at all: garbage collection is almost impossible to specify.
In particular, the C++ standard is quite careful to specify the language in terms of externally observable behavior, rather than how the implementation achieves that behavior. In the case of garbage collection, however, there is virtually no externally observable behavior.
The general idea of garbage collection is that it should make a reasonable attempt at assuring that a memory allocation will succeed. Unfortunately, it's essentially impossible to guarantee that any memory allocation will succeed, even if you do have a garbage collector in operation. This is true to some extent in any case, but particularly so in the case of C++, because it's (probably) not possible to use a copying collector (or anything similar) that moves objects in memory during a collection cycle.
If you can't move objects, you can't create a single, contiguous memory space from which to do your allocations -- and that means your heap (or free store, or whatever you prefer to call it) can, and probably will, become fragmented over time. This, in turn, can prevent an allocation from succeeding, even when there's more memory free than the amount being requested.
While it might be possible to come up with some guarantee that says (in essence) that if you repeat exactly the same pattern of allocation repeatedly, and it succeeded the first time, it will continue to succeed on subsequent iterations, provided that the allocated memory became inaccessible between iterations. That's such a weak guarantee it's essentially useless, but I can't see any reasonable hope of strengthening it.
Even so, it's stronger than what has been proposed for C++. The previous proposal [warning: PDF] (that got dropped) didn't guarantee anything at all. In 28 pages of proposal, what you got in the way of externally observable behavior was a single (non-normative) note saying:
[ Note: For garbage collected programs, a high quality hosted implementation should attempt to maximize the amount of unreachable memory it reclaims. —end note ]
At least for me, this raises a serious question about return on investment. We're going to break existing code (nobody's sure exactly how much, but definitely quite a bit), place new requirements on implementations and new restrictions on code, and what we get in return is quite possibly nothing at all?
Even at best, what we get are programs that, based on testing with Java, will probably require around six times as much memory to run at the same speed they do now. Worse, garbage collection was part of Java from the beginning -- C++ places enough more restrictions on the garbage collector that it will almost certainly have an even worse cost/benefit ratio (even if we go beyond what the proposal guaranteed and assume there would be some benefit).
I'd summarize the situation mathematically: this a complex situation. As any mathematician knows, a complex number has two parts: real and imaginary. It appears to me that what we have here are costs that are real, but benefits that are (at least mostly) imaginary.
If you want automatic garbage collection, there are good commercial
and public-domain garbage collectors for C++. For applications where
garbage collection is suitable, C++ is an excellent garbage collected
language with a performance that compares favorably with other garbage
collected languages. See The C++ Programming Language (4rd
Edition) for a discussion of automatic garbage collection in C++.
See also, Hans-J. Boehm's site for C and C++ garbage collection (archive).
Also, C++ supports programming techniques that allow memory
management to be safe and implicit without a garbage collector. I consider garbage collection a last choice and an imperfect way of handling for resource management. That does not mean that it is never useful, just that there are better approaches in many situations.
Source: http://www.stroustrup.com/bs_faq.html#garbage-collection
As for why it doesnt have it built in, If I remember correctly it was invented before GC was the thing, and I don't believe the language could have had GC for several reasons(I.E Backwards compatibilty with C)
Hope this helps.
tl;dr: Because modern C++ doesn't need garbage collection.
Bjarne Stroustrup's FAQ answer on this matter says:
I don't like garbage. I don't like littering. My ideal is to eliminate the need for a garbage collector by not producing any garbage. That is now possible.
The situation, for code written these days (C++17 and following the official Core Guidelines) is as follows:
Most memory ownership-related code is in libraries (especially those providing containers).
Most use of code involving memory ownership follows the CADRe or RAII pattern, so allocation is made on construction and deallocation on destruction, which happens when exiting the scope in which something was allocated.
You do not explicitly allocate or deallocate memory directly.
Raw pointers do not own memory (if you've followed the guidelines), so you can't leak by passing them around.
If you're wondering how you're going to pass the starting addresses of sequences of values in memory - you can and should prefer span's, obviating the need for raw pointers. You can still use such pointers, they'll just be non-owning.
If you really need an owning "pointer", you use C++' standard-library smart pointers - they can't leak, and are decently efficient (although the ABI can get in the way of that). Alternatively, you can pass ownership across scope boundaries with "owner pointers". These are uncommon and must be used explicitly; but when adopted - they allow for nice static checking against leaks.
"Oh yeah? But what about...
... if I just write code the way we used to write C++ in the old days?"
Indeed, you could just disregard all of the guidelines and write leaky application code - and it will compile and run (and leak), same as always.
But it's not a "just don't do that" situation, where the developer is expected to be virtuous and exercise a lot of self control; it's just not simpler to write non-conforming code, nor is it faster to write, nor is it better-performing. Gradually it will also become more difficult to write, as you would face an increasing "impedance mismatch" with what conforming code provides and expects.
... if I reintrepret_cast? Or do complex pointer arithmetic? Or other such hacks?"
Indeed, if you put your mind to it, you can write code that messes things up despite playing nice with the guidelines. But:
You would do this rarely (in terms of places in the code, not necessarily in terms of fraction of execution time)
You would only do this intentionally, not accidentally.
Doing so will stand out in a codebase conforming to the guidelines.
It's the kind of code in which you would bypass the GC in another language anyway.
... library development?"
If you're a C++ library developer then you do write unsafe code involving raw pointers, and you are required to code carefully and responsibly - but these are self-contained pieces of code written by experts (and more importantly, reviewed by experts).
So, it's just like Bjarne said: There's really no motivation to collect garbage generally, as you all but make sure not to produce garbage. GC is becoming a non-problem with C++.
That is not to say GC isn't an interesting problem for certain specific applications, when you want to employ custom allocation and de-allocations strategies. For those you would want custom allocation and de-allocation, not a language-level GC.
Stroustrup made some good comments on this at the 2013 Going Native conference.
Just skip to about 25m50s in this video. (I'd recommend watching the whole video actually, but this skips to the stuff about garbage collection.)
When you have a really great language that makes it easy (and safe, and predictable, and easy-to-read, and easy-to-teach) to deal with objects and values in a direct way, avoiding (explicit) use of the heap, then you don't even want garbage collection.
With modern C++, and the stuff we have in C++11, garbage collection is no longer desirable except in limited circumstances. In fact, even if a good garbage collector is built into one of the major C++ compilers, I think that it won't be used very often. It will be easier, not harder, to avoid the GC.
He shows this example:
void f(int n, int x) {
Gadget *p = new Gadget{n};
if(x<100) throw SomeException{};
if(x<200) return;
delete p;
}
This is unsafe in C++. But it's also unsafe in Java! In C++, if the function returns early, the delete will never be called. But if you had full garbage collection, such as in Java, you merely get a suggestion that the object will be destructed "at some point in the future" (Update: it's even worse that this. Java does not promise to call the finalizer ever - it maybe never be called). This isn't good enough if Gadget holds an open file handle, or a connection to a database, or data which you have buffered for write to a database at a later point. We want the Gadget to be destroyed as soon as it's finished, in order to free these resources as soon as possible. You don't want your database server struggling with thousands of database connections that are no longer needed - it doesn't know that your program is finished working.
So what's the solution? There are a few approaches. The obvious approach, which you'll use for the vast majority of your objects is:
void f(int n, int x) {
Gadget p = {n}; // Just leave it on the stack (where it belongs!)
if(x<100) throw SomeException{};
if(x<200) return;
}
This takes fewer characters to type. It doesn't have new getting in the way. It doesn't require you to type Gadget twice. The object is destroyed at the end of the function. If this is what you want, this is very intuitive. Gadgets behave the same as int or double. Predictable, easy-to-read, easy-to-teach. Everything is a 'value'. Sometimes a big value, but values are easier to teach because you don't have this 'action at a distance' thing that you get with pointers (or references).
Most of the objects you make are for use only in the function that created them, and perhaps passed as inputs to child functions. The programmer shouldn't have to think about 'memory management' when returning objects, or otherwise sharing objects across widely separated parts of the software.
Scope and lifetime are important. Most of the time, it's easier if the lifetime is the same as the scope. It's easier to understand and easier to teach. When you want a different lifetime, it should be obvious reading the code that you're doing this, by use of shared_ptr for example. (Or returning (large) objects by value, leveraging move-semantics or unique_ptr.
This might seem like an efficiency problem. What if I want to return a Gadget from foo()? C++11's move semantics make it easier to return big objects. Just write Gadget foo() { ... } and it will just work, and work quickly. You don't need to mess with && yourself, just return things by value and the language will often be able to do the necessary optimizations. (Even before C++03, compilers did a remarkably good job at avoiding unnecessary copying.)
As Stroustrup said elsewhere in the video (paraphrasing): "Only a computer scientist would insist on copying an object, and then destroying the original. (audience laughs). Why not just move the object directly to the new location? This is what humans (not computer scientists) expect."
When you can guarantee only one copy of an object is needed, it's much easier to understand the lifetime of the object. You can pick what lifetime policy you want, and garbage collection is there if you want. But when you understand the benefits of the other approaches, you'll find that garbage collection is at the bottom of your list of preferences.
If that doesn't work for you, you can use unique_ptr, or failing that, shared_ptr. Well written C++11 is shorter, easier-to-read, and easier-to-teach than many other languages when it comes to memory management.
The idea behind C++ was that you would not pay any performance impact for features that you don't use. So adding garbage collection would have meant having some programs run straight on the hardware the way C does and some within some sort of runtime virtual machine.
Nothing prevents you from using some form of smart pointers that are bound to some third-party garbage collection mechanism. I seem to recall Microsoft doing something like that with COM and it didn't go to well.
To answer most "why" questions about C++, read Design and Evolution of C++
One of the fundamental principles behind the original C language is that memory is composed of a sequence of bytes, and code need only care about what those bytes mean at the exact moment that they are being used. Modern C allows compilers to impose additional restrictions, but C includes--and C++ retains--the ability to decompose a pointer into a sequence of bytes, assemble any sequence of bytes containing the same values into a pointer, and then use that pointer to access the earlier object.
While that ability can be useful--or even indispensable--in some kinds of applications, a language that includes that ability will be very limited in its ability to support any kind of useful and reliable garbage collection. If a compiler doesn't know everything that has been done with the bits that made up a pointer, it will have no way of knowing whether information sufficient to reconstruct the pointer might exist somewhere in the universe. Since it would be possible for that information to be stored in ways that the computer wouldn't be able to access even if it knew about them (e.g. the bytes making up the pointer might have been shown on the screen long enough for someone to write them down on a piece of paper), it may be literally impossible for a computer to know whether a pointer could possibly be used in the future.
An interesting quirk of many garbage-collected frameworks is that an object reference not defined by the bit patterns contained therein, but by the relationship between the bits held in the object reference and other information held elsewhere. In C and C++, if the bit pattern stored in a pointer identifies an object, that bit pattern will identify that object until the object is explicitly destroyed. In a typical GC system, an object may be represented by a bit pattern 0x1234ABCD at one moment in time, but the next GC cycle might replace all references to 0x1234ABCD with references to 0x4321BABE, whereupon the object would be represented by the latter pattern. Even if one were to display the bit pattern associated with an object reference and then later read it back from the keyboard, there would be no expectation that the same bit pattern would be usable to identify the same object (or any object).
SHORT ANSWER:
We don't know how to do garbage collection efficiently (with minor time and space overhead) and correctly all the time (in all possible cases).
LONG ANSWER:
Just like C, C++ is a systems language; this means it is used when you are writing system code, e.g., operating system. In other words, C++ is designed, just like C, with best possible performance as the main target. The language' standard will not add any feature that might hinder the performance objective.
This pauses the question: Why garbage collection hinders performance? The main reason is that, when it comes to implementation, we [computer scientists] do not know how to do garbage collection with minimal overhead, for all cases. Hence it's impossible to the C++ compiler and runtime system to perform garbage collection efficiently all the time. On the other hand, a C++ programmer, should know his design/implementation and he's the best person to decide how to best do the garbage collection.
Last, if control (hardware, details, etc.) and performance (time, space, power, etc.) are not the main constraints, then C++ is not the right tool. Other language might serve better and offer more [hidden] runtime management, with the necessary overhead.
All the technical talking is overcomplicating the concept.
If you put GC into C++ for all the memory automatically then consider something like a web browser. The web browser must load a full web document AND run web scripts. You can store web script variables in the document tree. In a BIG document in a browser with lots of tabs open, it means that every time the GC must do a full collection it must also scan all the document elements.
On most computers this means that PAGE FAULTS will occur. So the main reason, to answer the question is that PAGE FAULTS will occur. You will know this as when your PC starts making lots of disk access. This is because the GC must touch lots of memory in order to prove invalid pointers. When you have a bona fide application using lots of memory, having to scan all objects every collection is havoc because of the PAGE FAULTS. A page fault is when virtual memory needs to get read back into RAM from disk.
So the correct solution is to divide an application into the parts that need GC and the parts that do not. In the case of the web browser example above, if the document tree was allocated with malloc, but the javascript ran with GC, then every time the GC kicks in it only scans a small portion of memory and all PAGED OUT elements of the memory for the document tree does not need to get paged back in.
To further understand this problem, look up on virtual memory and how it is implemented in computers. It is all about the fact that 2GB is available to the program when there is not really that much RAM. On modern computers with 2GB RAM for a 32BIt system it is not such a problem provided only one program is running.
As an additional example, consider a full collection that must trace all objects. First you must scan all objects reachable via roots. Second scan all the objects visible in step 1. Then scan waiting destructors. Then go to all the pages again and switch off all invisible objects. This means that many pages might get swapped out and back in multiple times.
So my answer to bring it short is that the number of PAGE FAULTS which occur as a result of touching all the memory causes full GC for all objects in a program to be unfeasible and so the programmer must view GC as an aid for things like scripts and database work, but do normal things with manual memory management.
And the other very important reason of course is global variables. In order for the collector to know that a global variable pointer is in the GC it would require specific keywords, and thus existing C++ code would not work.
When we compare C++ with Java, we see that C++ was not designed with implicit Garbage Collection in mind, while Java was.
Having things like arbitrary pointers in C-Style is not only bad for GC-implementations, but it would also destroy backward compatibility for a large amount of C++-legacy-code.
In addition to that, C++ is a language that is intended to run as standalone executable instead of having a complex run-time environment.
All in all:
Yes it might be possible to add Garbage Collection to C++, but for the sake of continuity it is better not to do so.
Mainly for two reasons:
Because it doesn't need one (IMHO)
Because it's pretty much incompatible with RAII, which is the cornerstone of C++
C++ already offers manual memory management, stack allocation, RAII, containers, automatic pointers, smart pointers... That should be enough. Garbage collectors are for lazy programmers who don't want to spend 5 minutes thinking about who should own which objects or when should resources be freed. That's not how we do things in C++.
Imposing garbage collection is really a low level to high level paradigm shift.
If you look at the way strings are handled in a language with garbage collection, you will find they ONLY allow high level string manipulation functions and do not allow binary access to the strings. Simply put, all string functions first check the pointers to see where the string is, even if you are only drawing out a byte. So if you are doing a loop that processes each byte in a string in a language with garbage collection, it must compute the base location plus offset for each iteration, because it cannot know when the string has moved. Then you have to think about heaps, stacks, threads, etc etc.
I still feel C++ offers some things that can't be beaten. It's not my intention to start a flame war here, please, if you have strong opinions about not liking C++ don't vent them here. I'm interested in hearing from C++ gurus about why they stick with it.
I'm particularly interested in aspects of C++ that are little known, or underutilised.
RAII / deterministic finalization. No, garbage collection is not just as good when you're dealing with a scarce, shared resource.
Unfettered access to OS APIs.
I have stayed with C++ as it is still the highest performing general purpose language for applications that need to combine efficiency and complexity. As an example, I write real time surface modelling software for hand-held devices for the surveying industry. Given the limited resources, Java, C#, etc... just don't provide the necessary performance characteristics, whereas lower level languages like C are much slower to develop in given the weaker abstraction characteristics. The range of levels of abstraction available to a C++ developer is huge, at one extreme I can be overloading arithmetic operators such that I can say something like MaterialVolume = DesignSurface - GroundSurface while at the same time running a number of different heaps to manage the memory most efficiently for my app on a specific device. Combine this with a wealth of freely available source for solving pretty much any common problem, and you have one heck of a powerful development language.
Is C++ still the optimal development solution for most problems in most domains? Probably not, though at a pinch it can still be used for most of them. Is it still the best solution for efficient development of high performance applications? IMHO without a doubt.
Shooting oneself in the foot.
No other language offers such a creative array of tools. Pointers, multiple inheritance, templates, operator overloading and a preprocessor.
A wonderfully powerful language that also provides abundant opportunities for foot shooting.
Edit: I apologize if my lame attempt at humor has offended some. I consider C++ to be the most powerful language that I have ever used -- with abilities to code at the assembly language level when desired, and at a high level of abstraction when desired. C++ has been my primary language since the early '90s.
My answer was based on years of experience of shooting myself in the foot. At least C++ allows me to do so elegantly.
Deterministic object destruction leads to some magnificent design patterns. For instance, while RAII is not as general a technique as garbage collection, it leads to some impressive capabilities which you cannot get with GC.
C++ is also unique in that it has a Turing-complete preprocessor. This allows you to prefer (as in the opposite of defer) a lot of code tasks to compile time instead of run time. For instance, in real code you might have an assert() statement to test for a never-happen. The reality is that it will sooner or later happen... and happen at 3:00am when you're on vacation. The C++ preprocessor assert does the same test at compile time. Compile-time asserts fail between 8:00am and 5:00pm while you're sitting in front of the computer watching the code build; run-time asserts fail at 3:00am when you're asleep in Hawai'i. It's pretty easy to see the win there.
In most languages, strategy patterns are done at run-time and throw exceptions in the event of a type mismatch. In C++, strategies can be done at compile-time through the preprocessor facility and can be guaranteed typesafe.
Write inline assembly (MMX, SSE, etc.).
Deterministic object destruction. I.e. real destructors. Makes managing scarce resources easier. Allows for RAII.
Easier access to structured binary data. It's easier to cast a memory region as a struct than to parse it and copy each value into a struct.
Multiple inheritance. Not everything can be done with interfaces. Sometimes you want to inherit actual functionality too.
I think i'm just going to praise C++ for its ability to use templates to catch expressions and execute it lazily when it's needed. For those not knowing what this is about, here is an example.
Template mixins provide reuse that I haven't seen elsewhere. With them you can build up a large object with lots of behaviour as though you had written the whole thing by hand. But all these small aspects of its functionality can be reused, it's particularly great for implementing parts of an interface (or the whole thing), where you are implementing a number of interfaces. The resulting object is lightning-fast because it's all inlined.
Speed may not matter in many cases, but when you're writing component software, and users may combine components in unthought-of complicated ways to do things, the speed of inlining and C++ seems to allow much more complex structures to be created.
Absolute control over the memory layout, alignment, and access when you need it. If you're careful enough you can write some very cache-friendly programs. For multi-processor programs, you can also eliminate a lot of slow downs from cache coherence mechanisms.
(Okay, you can do this in C, assembly, and probably Fortran too. But C++ lets you write the rest of your program at a higher level.)
This will probably not be a popular answer, but I think what sets C++ apart are its compile-time capabilities, e.g. templates and #define. You can do all sorts of text manipulation on your program using these features, much of which has been abandoned in later languages in the name of simplicity. To me that's way more important than any low-level bit fiddling that's supposedly easier or faster in C++.
C#, for instance, doesn't have a real macro facility. You can't #include another file directly into the source, or use #define to manipulate the program as text. Think about any time you had to mechanically type repetitive code and you knew there was a better way. You may even have written a program to generate code for you. Well, the C++ preprocessor automates all of these things.
The "generics" facility in C# is similarly limited compared to C++ templates. C++ lets you apply the dot operator to a template type T blindly, calling (for example) methods that may not exist, and checks-for-correctness are only applied once the template is actually applied to a specific class. When that happens, if all the assumptions you made about T actually hold, then your code will compile. C# doesn't allow this... type "T" basically has to be dealt with as an Object, i.e. using only the lowest common denominator of operations available to everything (assignment, GetHashCode(), Equals()).
C# has done away with the preprocessor, and real generics, in the name of simplicity. Unfortunately, when I use C#, I find myself reaching for substitutes for these C++ constructs, which are inevitably more bloated and layered than the C++ approach. For example, I have seen programmers work around the absence of #include in several bloated ways: dynamically linking to external assemblies, re-defining constants in several locations (one file per project) or selecting constants from a database, etc.
As Ms. Crabapple from The Simpson's once said, this is "pretty lame, Milhouse."
In terms of Computer Science, these compile-time features of C++ enable things like call-by-name parameter passing, which is known to be more powerful than call-by-value and call-by-reference.
Again, this is perhaps not the popular answer- any introductory C++ text will warn you off of #define, for example. But having worked with a wide variety of languages over many years, and having given consideration to the theory behind all of this, I think that many people are giving bad advice. This seems especially to be the case in the diluted sub-field known as "IT."
Passing POD structures across processes with minimum overhead. In other words, it allows us to easily handle blobs of binary data.
C# and Java force you to put your 'main()' function in a class. I find that weird, because it dilutes the meaning of a class.
To me, a class is a category of objects in your problem domain. A program is not such an object. So there should never be a class called 'Program' in your program. This would be equivalent to a mathematical proof using a symbol to notate itself -- the proof -- alongside symbols representing mathematical objects. It'll be just weird and inconsistent.
Fortunately, unlike C# and Java, C++ allows global functions. That lets your main() function to exist outside. Therefore C++ offers a simpler, more consistent and perhaps truer implementation of the the object-oriented idiom. Hence, this is one thing C++ can do, but C# and Java cannot.
I think that operator overloading is a quite nice feature. Of course it can be very much abused (like in Boost lambda).
Tight control over system resources (esp. memory) while offering powerful abstraction mechanisms optionally. The only language I know of that can come close to C++ in this regard is Ada.
C++ provides complete control over memory and as result a makes the the flow of program execution much more predictable.
Not only can you say precisely at what time allocations and deallocations of memory occurs, you can define you own heaps, have multiple heaps for different purposes and say precisely where in memory data is allocated to. This is frequently useful when programming on embedded/real time systems, such as games consoles, cell phones, mp3 players, etc..., which:
have strict upper limits on memory that is easy to reach (constrast with a PC which just gets slower as you run out of physical memory)
frequently have non homogeneous memory layout. You may want to allocate objects of one type in one piece of physical memory, and objects of another type in another piece.
have real time programming constraints. Unexpectedly calling the garbage collector at the wrong time can be disastrous.
AFAIK, C and C++ are the only sensible option for doing this kind of thing.
Well to be quite honest, you can do just about anything if your willing to write enough code.
So to answer your question, no, there is nothing you can't do in another language that C++ can't do. It's just how much patience do you have and are you willing to devote the long sleepless nights to get it to work?
There are things that C++ wrappers make it easy to do (because they can read the header files), like Office development. But again, it's because someone wrote lots of code to "wrap" it for you in an RCW or "Runtime Callable Wrapper"
EDIT: You also realize this is a loaded question.