without - new int c++

Why should C++ programmers minimize use of 'new'? (12)

I stumbled upon Stack Overflow question Memory leak with std::string when using std::list<std::string>, and one of the comments says this:

Stop using new so much. I can't see any reason you used new anywhere you did. You can create objects by value in C++ and it's one of the huge advantages to using the language. You do not have to allocate everything on the heap. Stop thinking like a Java programmer.

I'm not really sure what he means by that. Why should objects be created by value in C++ as often as possible, and what difference does it make internally? Did I misinterpret the answer?


Because it is prone to subtle leaks even if you wrap the result in a smart pointer.

Consider a "careful" user who remembers to wrap objects in smart pointers:

foo(shared_ptr<T1>(new T1()), shared_ptr<T2>(new T2()));

This code is dangerous because there is no guarantee that either shared_ptr is constructed before either T1 or T2. Hence, if one of new T1() or new T2() fails after the other succeeds, then the first object will be leaked because no shared_ptr exists to destroy and deallocate it.

Solution: use make_shared.


This is no longer a problem: C++17 imposes a constraint on the order of these operations, in this case ensuring that each call to new() must be immediately followed by the construction of the corresponding smart pointer, with no other operation in between. This implies that, by the time the second new() is called, it is guaranteed that the first object has already been wrapped in its smart pointer, thus preventing any leaks in case an exception is thrown.

A more detailed explanation of the new evaluation order introduced by C++17 was provided by Barry in another answer.

Because the stack is fast and foolproof

In C++, it takes but a single instruction to allocate space -- on the stack -- for every local scope object in a given function, and it's impossible to leak any of that memory. That comment intended (or should have intended) to say something like "use the stack and not the heap".

new is the new goto.

Recall why goto is so reviled: while it is a powerful, low-level tool for flow control, people often used it in unnecessarily complicated ways that made code difficult to follow. Furthermore, the most useful and easiest to read patterns were encoded in structured programming statements (e.g. for or while); the ultimate effect is that the code where goto is the appropriate way to is rather rare, if you are tempted to write goto, you're probably doing things badly (unless you really know what you're doing).

new is similar — it is often used to make things unnecessarily complicated and harder to read, and the most useful usage patterns can be encoded have been encoded into various classes. Furthermore, if you need to use any new usage patterns for which there aren't already standard classes, you can write your own classes that encode them!

I would even argue that new is worse than goto, due to the need to pair new and delete statements.

Like goto, if you ever think you need to use new, you are probably doing things badly — especially if you are doing so outside of the implementation of a class whose purpose in life is to encapsulate whatever dynamic allocations you need to do.

I tend to disagree with the idea of using new "too much". Though the original poster's use of new with system classes is a bit ridiculous. (int *i; i = new int[9999];? really? int i[9999]; is much clearer.) I think that is what was getting the commenter's goat.

When you're working with system objects, it's very rare that you'd need more than one reference to the exact same object. As long as the value is the same, that's all that matters. And system objects don't typically take up much space in memory. (one byte per character, in a string). And if they do, the libraries should be designed to take that memory management into account (if they're written well). In these cases, (all but one or two of the news in his code), new is practically pointless and only serves to introduce confusions and potential for bugs.

When you're working with your own classes/objects, however (e.g. the original poster's Line class), then you have to begin thinking about the issues like memory footprint, persistence of data, etc. yourself. At this point, allowing multiple references to the same value is invaluable - it allows for constructs like linked lists, dictionaries, and graphs, where multiple variables need to not only have the same value, but reference the exact same object in memory. However, the Line class doesn't have any of those requirements. So the original poster's code actually has absolutely no needs for new.

I think the poster meant to say You do not have to allocate everything on theheap rather than the the stack.

Basically objects are allocated on the stack (if the object size allows, of course) because of the cheap cost of stack-allocation, rather than heap-based allocation which involves quite some work by the allocator, and adds verbosity because then you have to manage data allocated on the heap.

Objects created by new must be eventually deleted lest they leak. The destructor won't be called, memory won't be freed, the whole bit. Since C++ has no garbage collection, it's a problem.

Objects created by value (i. e. on stack) automatically die when they go out of scope. The destructor call is inserted by the compiler, and the memory is auto-freed upon function return.

Smart pointers like auto_ptr, shared_ptr solve the dangling reference problem, but they require coding discipline and have other issues (copyability, reference loops, etc.).

Also, in heavily multithreaded scenarios, new is a point of contention between threads; there can be a performance impact for overusing new. Stack object creation is by definition thread-local, since each thread has its own stack.

The downside of value objects is that they die once the host function returns - you cannot pass a reference to those back to the caller, only by copying or returning by value.

One notable reason to avoid overusing the heap is for performance -- specifically involving the performance of the default memory management mechanism used by C++. While allocation can be quite quick in the trivial case, doing a lot of new and delete on objects of non-uniform size without strict order leads not only to memory fragmentation, but it also complicates the allocation algorithm and can absolutely destroy performance in certain cases.

That's the problem that memory pools where created to solve, allowing to to mitigate the inherent disadvantages of traditional heap implementations, while still allowing you to use the heap as necessary.

Better still, though, to avoid the problem altogether. If you can put it on the stack, then do so.

There are two widely-used memory allocation techniques: automatic allocation and dynamic allocation. Commonly, there is a corresponding region of memory for each: the stack and the heap.


The stack always allocates memory in a sequential fashion. It can do so because it requires you to release the memory in the reverse order (First-In, Last-Out: FILO). This is the memory allocation technique for local variables in many programming languages. It is very, very fast because it requires minimal bookkeeping and the next address to allocate is implicit.

In C++, this is called automatic storage because the storage is claimed automatically at the end of scope. As soon as execution of current code block (delimited using {}) is completed, memory for all variables in that block is automatically collected. This is also the moment where destructors are invoked to clean up resources.


The heap allows for a more flexible memory allocation mode. Bookkeeping is more complex and allocation is slower. Because there is no implicit release point, you must release the memory manually, using delete or delete[] (free in C). However, the absence of an implicit release point is the key to the heap's flexibility.

Reasons to use dynamic allocation

Even if using the heap is slower and potentially leads to memory leaks or memory fragmentation, there are perfectly good use cases for dynamic allocation, as it's less limited.

Two key reasons to use dynamic allocation:

  • You don't know how much memory you need at compile time. For instance, when reading a text file into a string, you usually don't know what size the file has, so you can't decide how much memory to allocate until you run the program.

  • You want to allocate memory which will persist after leaving the current block. For instance, you may want to write a function string readfile(string path) that returns the contents of a file. In this case, even if the stack could hold the entire file contents, you could not return from a function and keep the allocated memory block.

Why dynamic allocation is often unnecessary

In C++ there's a neat construct called a destructor. This mechanism allows you to manage resources by aligning the lifetime of the resource with the lifetime of a variable. This technique is called RAII and is the distinguishing point of C++. It "wraps" resources into objects. std::string is a perfect example. This snippet:

int main ( int argc, char* argv[] )
    std::string program(argv[0]);

actually allocates a variable amount of memory. The std::string object allocates memory using the heap and releases it in its destructor. In this case, you did not need to manually manage any resources and still got the benefits of dynamic memory allocation.

In particular, it implies that in this snippet:

int main ( int argc, char* argv[] )
    std::string * program = new std::string(argv[0]);  // Bad!
    delete program;

there is unneeded dynamic memory allocation. The program requires more typing (!) and introduces the risk of forgetting to deallocate the memory. It does this with no apparent benefit.

Why you should use automatic storage as often as possible

Basically, the last paragraph sums it up. Using automatic storage as often as possible makes your programs:

  • faster to type;
  • faster when run;
  • less prone to memory/resource leaks.

Bonus points

In the referenced question, there are additional concerns. In particular, the following class:

class Line {
    std::string* mString;

Line::Line() {
    mString = new std::string("foo_bar");

Line::~Line() {
    delete mString;

Is actually a lot more risky to use than the following one:

class Line {
    std::string mString;

Line::Line() {
    mString = "foo_bar";
    // note: there is a cleaner way to write this.

The reason is that std::string properly defines a copy constructor. Consider the following program:

int main ()
    Line l1;
    Line l2 = l1;

Using the original version, this program will likely crash, as it uses delete on the same string twice. Using the modified version, each Line instance will own its own string instance, each with its own memory and both will be released at the end of the program.

Other notes

Extensive use of RAII is considered a best practice in C++ because of all the reasons above. However, there is an additional benefit which is not immediately obvious. Basically, it's better than the sum of its parts. The whole mechanism composes. It scales.

If you use the Line class as a building block:

 class Table
      Line borders[4];


 int main ()
     Table table;

allocates four std::string instances, four Line instances, one Table instance and all the string's contents and everything is freed automagically.

To a great extent, that's someone elevating their own weaknesses to a general rule. There's nothing wrong per se with creating objects using the new operator. What there is some argument for is that you have to do so with some discipline: if you create an object you need to make sure it's going to be destroyed.

The easiest way of doing that is to create the object in automatic storage, so C++ knows to destroy it when it goes out of scope:

    File foo = File("foo.dat");

    // do things


Now, observe that when you fall off that block after the end-brace, foo is out of scope. C++ will call its dtor automatically for you. Unlike Java, you don't need to wait for the GC to find it.

Had you written

     File * foo = new File("foo.dat");

you would want to match it explicitly with

     delete foo;

or even better, allocate your File * as a "smart pointer". If you aren't careful about that it can lead to leaks.

The answer itself makes the mistaken assumption that if you don't use new you don't allocate on the heap; in fact, in C++ you don't know that. At most, you know that a small amout of memory, say one pointer, is certainly allocated on the stack. However, consider if the implementation of File is something like

  class File {
      FileImpl * fd;
      File(String fn){ fd = new FileImpl(fn);}

then FileImpl will still be allocated on the stack.

And yes, you'd better be sure to have

     ~File(){ delete fd ; }

in the class as well; without it, you'll leak memory from the heap even if you didn't apparently allocate on the heap at all.

When you use new, objects are allocated to the heap. It is generally used when you anticipate expansion. When you declare an object such as,

Class var;

it is placed on the stack.

You will always have to call destroy on the object that you placed on the heap with new. This opens the potential for memory leaks. Objects placed on the stack are not prone to memory leaking!

  • C++ doesn't employ any memory manager by its own. Other languages like C#, Java has garbage collector to handle the memory
  • C++ using operating system routines to allocate the memory and too much new/delete could fragment the available memory
  • With any application, if the memory is frequently being used it's advisable to pre-allocate it and release when not required.
  • Improper memory management could lead memory leaks and it's really hard to track. So using stack objects within the scope of function is a proven technique
  • The downside of using stack objects are, it creates multiple copies of objects on returning, passing to functions etc. However smart compilers are well aware of these situations and they've been optimized well for performance
  • It's really tedious in C++ if the memory being allocated and released in two different places. The responsibility for release is always a question and mostly we rely on some commonly accessible pointers, stack objects (maximum possible) and techniques like auto_ptr (RAII objects)
  • The best thing is that, you've control over the memory and the worst thing is that you will not have any control over the memory if we employ an improper memory management for the application. The crashes caused due to memory corruptions are the nastiest and hard to trace.