原始C语言背后的一个基本原则是，内存是由一系列字节组成的，代码只需要关心这些字节在被使用的确切时刻意味着什么。现代C语言允许编译器施加额外的限制，但C语言包括——c++保留了——将指针分解为字节序列，将包含相同值的任何字节序列组装为指针，然后使用该指针访问先前的对象。

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).

主要有两个原因:

因为它不需要(恕我直言) 因为它与RAII几乎不兼容，RAII是c++的基石

c++已经提供了手动内存管理、堆栈分配、RAII、容器、自动指针、智能指针……这应该足够了。垃圾收集器适合懒惰的程序员，他们不想花5分钟思考谁应该拥有哪些对象或什么时候应该释放资源。这不是我们在c++中做事情的方式。

虽然这是一个老问题，但仍然有一个问题我没有看到任何人解决过:垃圾收集几乎不可能指定。

特别是，c++标准非常谨慎地根据外部可观察到的行为来指定语言，而不是实现如何实现该行为。然而，在垃圾收集的情况下，实际上没有外部可观察到的行为。

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.

如果不能移动对象，就不能创建一个单独的、连续的内存空间来进行分配——这意味着您的堆(或自由存储区，或任何您喜欢称呼它的地方)可能会随着时间的推移而变得碎片化。这反过来又会阻止分配成功，即使空闲内存比请求的内存多。

尽管有可能提出某种保证，即(本质上)如果您重复完全相同的分配模式，并且它在第一次成功，那么它将在后续迭代中继续成功，前提是分配的内存在迭代之间变得不可访问。这是一个非常微弱的保证，基本上毫无用处，但我看不到任何加强它的合理希望。

即便如此，它也比为c++所提议的更强大。之前的提议[警告:PDF](被放弃了)根本不能保证任何东西。在28页的提案中，你在外部可观察到的行为中看到的是一个单一的(不规范的)注释:

[注意:对于垃圾收集程序，高质量的托管实现应该尝试最大限度地回收不可访问的内存量。-结束注释]

至少对我来说，这引发了一个关于投资回报的严肃问题。我们将破坏现有的代码(没有人知道具体破坏了多少，但肯定是相当多)，对实现提出新的要求，对代码提出新的限制，而我们得到的回报很可能是什么都没有?

即使在最好的情况下，我们得到的是基于Java测试的程序，以现在相同的速度运行可能需要大约6倍的内存。更糟糕的是，垃圾收集从一开始就是Java的一部分——c++对垃圾收集器施加了足够多的限制，以至于它几乎肯定会有更糟糕的成本/收益比(即使我们超出了提案所保证的范围，并假设会有一些收益)。

我要用数学方法总结一下情况:这是一个复杂的情况。数学家都知道，复数有两部分:实数和虚数。在我看来，我们这里的成本是真实的，但收益(至少大部分)是虚构的。

什么类型?它应该针对嵌入式洗衣机控制器、手机、工作站或超级计算机进行优化吗? 它应该优先考虑gui响应还是服务器加载? 它应该使用大量内存还是大量CPU?

C/c++被用于太多不同的环境。 我怀疑像增强智能指针这样的东西对大多数用户来说就足够了

编辑:自动垃圾收集器并不是一个性能问题(你总是可以购买更多的服务器)，而是一个可预测的性能问题。 不知道GC什么时候会起作用就像雇佣一个嗜睡症的飞行员，大多数时候他们是很棒的-但当你真的需要响应的时候!

简短的回答: 我们不知道如何高效地(在很少的时间和空间开销下)并且始终(在所有可能的情况下)正确地进行垃圾收集。

长一点的回答: 就像C一样，c++是一种系统语言;这意味着当您编写系统代码时，例如操作系统时，将使用它。换句话说，c++就像C一样，以尽可能好的性能作为主要目标。该语言标准不会增加任何可能阻碍性能目标的特性。

这暂停了这个问题:为什么垃圾收集会影响性能?主要原因是，当涉及到实现时，我们(计算机科学家)不知道如何在所有情况下以最小的开销进行垃圾收集。因此，c++编译器和运行时系统不可能一直有效地执行垃圾收集。另一方面，c++程序员应该了解他的设计/实现，他是决定如何最好地进行垃圾收集的最佳人选。

最后，如果控制(硬件、细节等)和性能(时间、空间、电源等)不是主要的限制，那么c++就不是合适的工具。其他语言可能会更好，并提供更多[隐藏的]运行时管理，以及必要的开销。

原始C语言背后的一个基本原则是，内存是由一系列字节组成的，代码只需要关心这些字节在被使用的确切时刻意味着什么。现代C语言允许编译器施加额外的限制，但C语言包括——c++保留了——将指针分解为字节序列，将包含相同值的任何字节序列组装为指针，然后使用该指针访问先前的对象。

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).