🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <41tjep$2hn@deyke3.fc.hp.com>, rainer@deyke3.fc.hp.com says...
>
>Pete Becker (pete@borland.com) wrote:
>: In article <41kici$p4t@deyke3.fc.hp.com>, rainer@deyke3.fc.hp.com says...
>: >: TApplication* MyApp;
>: >: MyApp = new TApplication("My Application");
>: >
>: >: without new and delete?
>: >
>: >Why bother with doing both at the same time?
>: >
>: >MyApp = (TApplication *)malloc(sizeof(TApplication));
>: >create_TApplication(MyApp, "My Application");
>
>: The difference is in the gap between the two lines, where you have 
something 
>: that claims to be a pointer to a TApplication object, but isn't. C++ makes 
it 
>: very hard to perform operations on objects that have not been initialized. 
>: Separating memory allocation from initalization makes it much easier to 
>: accidentally do things like this, as we have all done at one time or 
another.
>
>Real programmers don't "accidentally" forget to initialize objects.
>

Real programmers are human and make mistakes.

>:       Or, to turn the question around the other way, why separate them?
>
>Obviously when using an array where each object is initialized to a
>different value.  Especially a resizable array.

That's not the example you posted, which allocated a single object. So, let me 
ask again: in the code you posted, what benefit is there in separating 
allocation from initialization?