Even though most programmers understand what is the difference between objects and pointers to them, sometimes it is not entirely clear, which of the ways of accessing the object to choose. We have tried to answer this question below.
I’m coming from a Java background and have started working with objects in C++. But one thing that occurred to me is that people often use pointers to objects rather than the objects themselves, for example this declaration:
Object *myObject = new Object;
Or instead of using a function, let’s say testFunc(), like this:
we have to write:
But I can’t figure out why should we do it this way. I would assume it has to do with efficiency and speed since we get direct access to the memory address. Am I right?
By the way, we should note, that pointers in Java are not used explicitly, e.g. a programmer cannot access to object in code through a pointer to it. However, in Java all types, except base, are referenced: accessing to them goes by the link, although you cannot explicitly pass the parameter by link. Besides that, new in C++ and Java or C# are different things.
In order to give a slight idea about the pointers in C++ , we’ll give two similar code fragments:
Object object1 = new Object(); //A new object is allocated by Java Object object2 = new Object(); //Another new object is allocated by Java object1 = object2; //object1 now points to the object originally allocated for object2 //The object originally allocated for object1 is now "dead" – //nothing points to it, so it //will be reclaimed by the Garbage Collector. //If either object1 or object2 is changed, //the change will be reflected to the other
The closest equivalent to this, is:
Object * object1 = new Object(); //A new object is allocated on the heap Object * object2 = new Object(); //Another new object is allocated on the heap delete object1; //Since C++ does not have a garbage collector, //if we don't do that, the next line would //cause a "memory leak", i.e. a piece of claimed memory that //the app cannot use //and that we have no way to reclaim... object1 = object2; //Same as Java, object1 points to object2.
Let’s see the alternative C++ way:
Object object1; //A new object is allocated on the STACK Object object2; //Another new object is allocated on the STACK object1 = object2; //!!!! This is different! //The CONTENTS of object2 are COPIED onto object1, //using the "copy assignment operator", the definition of operator =. //But, the two objects are still different. //Change one, the other remains unchanged. //Also, the objects get automatically destroyed //once the function returns...
Are we getting a gain in speed, accessing directly to memory?
Actually, not at all. Pointers are usually used for the access to heap while the objects are located in stack – this is a simpler and quicker structure. If you are a beginner, we have for you some material in which we tell in detail what is a stack and a heap.
Strictly speaking, this question combines two different issues. First: when do we use dynamic memory allocation? Second: when is it better to use pointers? Sure, we won’t do without common words that you must always choose the most appropriate tool for the job. Almost always there is better realization than using manual dynamic allocation (dynamic allocation) and/or raw pointers.
It’s very unfortunate that you see dynamic allocation so often. That just shows how many bad C++ programmers there are.
In a sense, you have two questions bundled up into one. The first is when should we use dynamic allocation (using new)? The second is when should we use pointers?
The important take-home message is that you should always use the appropriate tool for the job. In almost all situations, there is something more appropriate and safer than performing manual dynamic allocation and/or using raw pointers.
In your question, you’ve demonstrated two ways of creating an object. The main difference is the storage duration of the object. When doing Object myObject; within a block, the object is created with automatic storage duration, which means it will be destroyed automatically when it goes out of scope. When you do new Object(), the object has dynamic storage duration, which means it stays alive until you explicitly delete it. You should only use dynamic storage duration when you need it. That is, you should always prefer creating objects with automatic storage duration when you can.
The main two situations in which you might require dynamic allocation:
- You need the object to outlive the current scope – that specific object at that specific memory location, not a copy of it. If you’re okay with copying/moving the object (most of the time you should be), you should prefer an automatic object.
- You need to allocate a lot of memory, which may easily fill up the stack. It would be nice if we didn’t have to concern ourselves with this (most of the time you shouldn’t have to), as it’s really outside the purview of C++, but unfortunately we have to deal with the reality of the systems we’re developing for.
- You don’t know exactly the array size, that you will have to use. As you know, in C++ have the arrays’ size is fixed. It may cause problems, for instance, while reading user input. The pointer defines only that section of memory, where the beginning of an array will be written, not limiting its size.
If a usage of dynamic allocation is necessary, you should encapsulate it using smart pointer or of another type that supports the idiom “Resource acquisition is initialization” (standard containers support it – it is an idiom, in accordance with which the resource: a block of memory, file, network connection, etc. — are initialized while getting in the constructor, and then carefully are destroyed by destructor). For example, smart pointers are std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr
However, there are other more general uses for raw pointers beyond dynamic allocation, but most have alternatives that you should prefer. As before, always prefer the alternatives unless you really need pointers.
- You need reference semantics. Sometimes you want to pass an object using a pointer (regardless of how it was allocated) because you want the function to which you’re passing it to have access that that specific object (not a copy of it). However, in most situations, you should prefer reference types to pointers, because this is specifically what they’re designed for. Note this is not necessarily about extending the lifetime of the object beyond the current scope, as in situation 1 above. As before, if you’re okay with passing a copy of the object, you don’t need reference semantics.
- You need polymorphism. You can only call functions polymorphically (that is, according to the dynamic type of an object) through a pointer or reference to the object. If that’s the behaviour you need, then you need to use pointers or references. Again, references should be preferred.
- You want to represent that an object is optional by allowing a nullptr to be passed when the object is being omitted. If it’s an argument, you should prefer to use default arguments or function overloads. Otherwise, you should prefer use a type that encapsulates this behaviour, such as std::optional (introduced in C++17 – with earlier C++ standards, use boost::optional).
- You want to decouple compilation units to improve compilation time. The useful property of a pointer is that you only require a forward declaration of the pointed-to type (to actually use the object, you’ll need a definition). This allows you to decouple parts of your compilation process, which may significantly improve compilation time. See the Pimpl idiom.
- You need to interface with a C library or a C-style library. At this point, you’re forced to use raw pointers. The best thing you can do is make sure you only let your raw pointers loose at the last possible moment. You can get a raw pointer from a smart pointer, for example, by using its get member function. If a library performs some allocation for you which it expects you to deallocate via a handle, you can often wrap the handle up in a smart pointer with a custom deleter that will deallocate the object appropriately.
Original source – stackoverflow.com