Thinking and reading about handling nulls again over the last few days has had an interesting side-effect of bringing some clarity to a phase of my C++ learning that I always thought was somewhat weird; I call it my “everything must be a reference” phase. Basically I stopped using pointers in my C++ code and started using references instead, everywhere. Naturally this lead to some very odd looking code that you can still see in my legacy C++ libraries to this day.
Reference Free Beginnings
Like many programmers I started out writing in C, where the only choice you had was the pointer. A consequence of its duality (null or value) meant that just by looking at the interface to a function you couldn’t really tell if the parameters were optional or not, if they weren’t of the primitive (built-in) types.
const char * m_name;
void printPerson(const Person* person)
. . .
Of course you had a fairly good idea that in most cases the value wasn’t optional and so books like Steve Maguire’s “Writing Solid Code” introduced me to the notion of Design by Contract and using ASSERTs in your interfaces to spot and highlight early when the contract had been violated . The knock-on effect of that, at least for those like myself who might have taken some of the advice a little too literally, was that our codebase became utterly littered with ASSERTs.
void copyPerson(Person* lhs, const Person* rhs)
ASSERT(lhs != NULL);
ASSERT(rhs != NULL);
. . .
In order to catch the violation as early as possible you needed to apply these checks as often as possible. At least, that was the logic I ended up applying. And to the extent that I started using ASSERTs where I probably should have been validating inputs, but that’s another post for another day...
From Pointers to References
Moving from mostly doing C to mostly doing C++ meant that I entered a brave new world with the notion of “references”. As I understood it back then references were basically the same as pointers (in implementation) but they were mostly an enabler for things like overloading the assignment operator and allowing you to use “.” instead of “->” . As someone coming from C that sure sounded like a bit of a kludge to me.
Although I embraced references to a certain degree, such as where they were expected, like in a copy constructor and assignment operator, I really didn’t get them at first. Some things just didn’t add up. For one thing why was “this” a pointer and not a reference? Then there was this “folklore” around the fact that references can’t be NULL. Yes they can, I can just do this:-
Person& person = (*(Person*)NULL);
OK, so that’s a bit contrived, but I was still hitting bugs where references were null, just as much as if they were declared as pointers, so clearly they weren’t any better from the perspective of avoiding dereferencing NULL pointers.
In search of an answer about the whole “this as a pointer” and other questions I picked up a copy of The Design and Evolution of C++. This is a great book which any self-respecting C++ programmer should read, not only because it gives you some insight and context into the history of various language features, but it also shows you the ever growing set of constraints that are applied to every subsequent change in the language.
Anyway, I got some answers from this and more importantly I began to realise that the “nullness” of a reference was less about the physical side and more about the semantics - using references meant that logically the parameter could never be null. A side effect of that is that no ASSERT is required in the function prologue because the interface already declares its intent. Doh!
That got me thinking. If I use references everywhere and turn any pointer into a reference as soon as possible then I can avoid nearly all this unnecessary pointer checking repetition. Being the ridiculously literal person I am at times I even took that to things like the return from the new operator by introducing simple factory methods like this:-
return *(new Row(*this));
If you’re thinking to yourself that’s an exception unsafe disaster waiting to happen, let me show you the call site:-
Row& row = m_clocks.CreateRow();
row[Clocks::COMPUTER] = m_machine;
. . .
Only kidding, it’s still a maintenance headache. At the time I wrote this Boost was by no means as ubiquitous as it is today and we were even a few years off C++ 03 so shared_ptr<> was a still a bit “new fangled” and experimental . And that assumes Visual C++ would get its act together and we would be willing to entertain the idea of living on the bleeding edge. Nope, neither as going to happen.
Although I could see the utility in shared_ptr<> and I was just beginning to get my head around the more general notion of RAII and writing exception-safe code, it still felt a bit like a backwards step. The desire to reduce the complexity of client code by leaning on RAII more meant the switch back to using what is fundamentally a shared “pointer”, not a shared “reference”. I know I’m not the only one who found this notion confusing because I’ve come across some weird home grown smart pointer classes in my time on other codebases.
So, now we have three choices in our API: pointers, references and the new one - smart pointer by reference. Due to some fairly dodgy custom smart pointer implementations that had a very noticeable effect on performance  I started seeing functions that took a smart pointer by reference instead of by value:-
void DoStuff(const shared_ptr<Thing>& thingy);
But isn’t this really all about confusing ownership semantics, not optionality? If you take ownership out of the equation for a moment the callee can expect a bald pointer or a reference. However if the callee wants to take shared ownership of an object and it won’t take NULL for an answer how should it declare its intent?
I’m still chewing over what the man himself (Bjarne Stroustrup) said at this year’s ACCU conference, but if I’ve understood him then I should only ever be passing values around anyway - any ownership and performance problems from copying should just be an implementation detail of the type. And therefore I shouldn’t be passing around shared_ptr<T> style values, but the T’s themselves (presumably using the Handle/Body idiom) .
I’m glad it’s only taken me just over a decade to finally work out what on earth I was trying to do all those years ago. I’m quite sure somewhere there is some code in production that a poor maintenance programmer is scratching their head over right now whilst the WTF meter is going through the roof. If it is you, then I can only apologise.
 In this era and the applications I worked on you couldn’t afford to keep this code in your release build so it only helped you during development, but it did make a big difference in tracking down bugs at the time.
 Much as I agree with the likes of Michael Feathers and Stan Lippman about knowing what’s going on under the hood helps you make more informed choices about using the language efficiently, it could also be a double-edged sword if you’re perhaps not aware of the concepts being modelled.
 I suspect if I had moved in the right circles, or had been a member of the ACCU back then I might have been able to spare my blushes a little.
 On Windows using a mutex is a very heavy-handed way of making a smart pointer thread safe. Critical sections were often employed too despite the primitive InterlockedXxx functions being readily available. Mind you I’ve no idea what the state-of-the-art is in thread-safe smart pointer implementations these days. Perhaps they’re consigned to history like the Reference Counted String class?
 At some point I’ll go back and watch the ACCU keynote video, not least to snigger at his poke at Java, but also to try and take in what he said again. At the time I didn’t think he said that much, and maybe he didn’t, it’s just that now maybe I’ve started to actually listen...