Ive always preferred pointers over references. By using pointers when I look at the code its clear which variable holds a memory adress and which is an actual object. ...you look at a pointer, you now that its one. Now the advantages of references are becoming more important to me than this.
So... if you only consider the syntax, which do you prefer? References or pointers.
I tend to prefer by reference when possible, but pointers are advantageous when you can have a null value. References can "force" the existence of a value (there are exceptions to this).
It's not just personal taste. Reference & Pointers tell you about the code.
Additionally, pointers can have a few more qualifiers that sadly references do not, such as __restrict, which is very powerful in code optimization.
Pointers are optional or are expected to change during their lifetimes, references are non-optional and won't change.
If during the lifetime of your pointer, it isn't expected to change and it's not optional - it should probably be a reference.
Where I have a choice, I prefer a reference unless the value can be maybe null.
// a short alias
template <typename T>
using opt = std::experimental::optional<T>;
// function using optional to return either a reference or 'null'
Bar g_Bar;
opt<Bar&> foo() { return condition ? g_Bar : nullopt; }
auto bar = foo();
if (bar)
use_bar(*bar);
Thanks for the answers so far!
A reference is an alias to an object instance while a pointer is an entirely different concept (it is its own value representing a memory address)
Thats the thing... that they are a different concept and use different syntax. (But generally they are handled the same way in the machine code.) In the case of the pointer its obvious that you dont operate on a "real object" but with a reference it isnt.
That would completely kill C++ as being a pay-for-what-you-use / opt-in language. Most embedded systems that I've worked on still use raw-pointers, or a smart pointer that acts like a raw one, but only performs leak detection during development.It'd be nice if the syntax were a little cleaner in C++, but then it'd also be nice if owning pointers (std::unique_ptr) were a built-in feature like in Rust. C++ is not for people afraid of typing or syntax spew. :P
That would completely kill C++ as being a pay-for-what-you-use / opt-in language. Most embedded systems that I've worked on still use raw-pointers, or a smart pointer that acts like a raw one, but only performs leak detection during development.
