Why should I use a pointer rather than the object itself?

Solution 1:

It's very unfortunate that you see dynamic allocation so often. That just shows how many bad C++ programmers there are.

In a sense, you have two questions bundled up into one. The first is when should we use dynamic allocation (using new)? The second is when should we use pointers?

The important take-home message is that you should always use the appropriate tool for the job. In almost all situations, there is something more appropriate and safer than performing manual dynamic allocation and/or using raw pointers.

Dynamic allocation

In your question, you've demonstrated two ways of creating an object. The main difference is the storage duration of the object. When doing Object myObject; within a block, the object is created with automatic storage duration, which means it will be destroyed automatically when it goes out of scope. When you do new Object(), the object has dynamic storage duration, which means it stays alive until you explicitly delete it. You should only use dynamic storage duration when you need it. That is, you should always prefer creating objects with automatic storage duration when you can.

The main two situations in which you might require dynamic allocation:

1. You need the object to outlive the current scope - that specific object at that specific memory location, not a copy of it. If you're okay with copying/moving the object (most of the time you should be), you should prefer an automatic object.
2. You need to allocate a lot of memory, which may easily fill up the stack. It would be nice if we didn't have to concern ourselves with this (most of the time you shouldn't have to), as it's really outside the purview of C++, but unfortunately, we have to deal with the reality of the systems we're developing for.

When you do absolutely require dynamic allocation, you should encapsulate it in a smart pointer or some other type that performs RAII (like the standard containers). Smart pointers provide ownership semantics of dynamically allocated objects. Take a look at std::unique_ptr and std::shared_ptr, for example. If you use them appropriately, you can almost entirely avoid performing your own memory management (see the Rule of Zero).

Pointers

However, there are other more general uses for raw pointers beyond dynamic allocation, but most have alternatives that you should prefer. As before, always prefer the alternatives unless you really need pointers.

1. You need reference semantics. Sometimes you want to pass an object using a pointer (regardless of how it was allocated) because you want the function to which you're passing it to have access that that specific object (not a copy of it). However, in most situations, you should prefer reference types to pointers, because this is specifically what they're designed for. Note this is not necessarily about extending the lifetime of the object beyond the current scope, as in situation 1 above. As before, if you're okay with passing a copy of the object, you don't need reference semantics.

2. You need polymorphism. You can only call functions polymorphically (that is, according to the dynamic type of an object) through a pointer or reference to the object. If that's the behavior you need, then you need to use pointers or references. Again, references should be preferred.

3. You want to represent that an object is optional by allowing a nullptr to be passed when the object is being omitted. If it's an argument, you should prefer to use default arguments or function overloads. Otherwise, you should preferably use a type that encapsulates this behavior, such as std::optional (introduced in C++17 - with earlier C++ standards, use boost::optional).

4. You want to decouple compilation units to improve compilation time. The useful property of a pointer is that you only require a forward declaration of the pointed-to type (to actually use the object, you'll need a definition). This allows you to decouple parts of your compilation process, which may significantly improve compilation time. See the Pimpl idiom.

5. You need to interface with a C library or a C-style library. At this point, you're forced to use raw pointers. The best thing you can do is make sure you only let your raw pointers loose at the last possible moment. You can get a raw pointer from a smart pointer, for example, by using its get member function. If a library performs some allocation for you which it expects you to deallocate via a handle, you can often wrap the handle up in a smart pointer with a custom deleter that will deallocate the object appropriately.

Solution 2:

There are many use cases for pointers.

Polymorphic behavior. For polymorphic types, pointers (or references) are used to avoid slicing:

class Base { ... };
class Derived : public Base { ... };

void fun(Base b) { ... }
void gun(Base* b) { ... }
void hun(Base& b) { ... }

Derived d;
fun(d);    // oops, all Derived parts silently "sliced" off
gun(&d);   // OK, a Derived object IS-A Base object
hun(d);    // also OK, reference also doesn't slice

Reference semantics and avoiding copying. For non-polymorphic types, a pointer (or a reference) will avoid copying a potentially expensive object

Base b;
fun(b);  // copies b, potentially expensive 
gun(&b); // takes a pointer to b, no copying
hun(b);  // regular syntax, behaves as a pointer

Note that C++11 has move semantics that can avoid many copies of expensive objects into function argument and as return values. But using a pointer will definitely avoid those and will allow multiple pointers on the same object (whereas an object can only be moved from once).

Resource acquisition. Creating a pointer to a resource using the new operator is an anti-pattern in modern C++. Use a special resource class (one of the Standard containers) or a smart pointer (std::unique_ptr<> or std::shared_ptr<>). Consider:

{
    auto b = new Base;
    ...       // oops, if an exception is thrown, destructor not called!
    delete b;
}

vs.

{
    auto b = std::make_unique<Base>();
    ...       // OK, now exception safe
}

A raw pointer should only be used as a "view" and not in any way involved in ownership, be it through direct creation or implicitly through return values. See also this Q&A from the C++ FAQ.

More fine-grained life-time control Every time a shared pointer is being copied (e.g. as a function argument) the resource it points to is being kept alive. Regular objects (not created by new, either directly by you or inside a resource class) are destroyed when going out of scope.

Solution 3:

There are many excellent answers to this question, including the important use cases of forward declarations, polymorphism etc. but I feel a part of the "soul" of your question is not answered - namely what the different syntaxes mean across Java and C++.

Let's examine the situation comparing the two languages:

Java:

Object object1 = new Object(); //A new object is allocated by Java
Object object2 = new Object(); //Another new object is allocated by Java

object1 = object2; 
//object1 now points to the object originally allocated for object2
//The object originally allocated for object1 is now "dead" - nothing points to it, so it
//will be reclaimed by the Garbage Collector.
//If either object1 or object2 is changed, the change will be reflected to the other

The closest equivalent to this, is:

C++:

Object * object1 = new Object(); //A new object is allocated on the heap
Object * object2 = new Object(); //Another new object is allocated on the heap
delete object1;
//Since C++ does not have a garbage collector, if we don't do that, the next line would 
//cause a "memory leak", i.e. a piece of claimed memory that the app cannot use 
//and that we have no way to reclaim...

object1 = object2; //Same as Java, object1 points to object2.

Let's see the alternative C++ way:

Object object1; //A new object is allocated on the STACK
Object object2; //Another new object is allocated on the STACK
object1 = object2;//!!!! This is different! The CONTENTS of object2 are COPIED onto object1,
//using the "copy assignment operator", the definition of operator =.
//But, the two objects are still different. Change one, the other remains unchanged.
//Also, the objects get automatically destroyed once the function returns...

The best way to think of it is that -- more or less -- Java (implicitly) handles pointers to objects, while C++ may handle either pointers to objects, or the objects themselves. There are exceptions to this -- for example, if you declare Java "primitive" types, they are actual values that are copied, and not pointers. So,

Java:

int object1; //An integer is allocated on the stack.
int object2; //Another integer is allocated on the stack.
object1 = object2; //The value of object2 is copied to object1.

That said, using pointers is NOT necessarily either the correct or the wrong way to handle things; however other answers have covered that satisfactorily. The general idea though is that in C++ you have much more control on the lifetime of the objects, and on where they will live.

Take home point -- the Object * object = new Object() construct is actually what is closest to typical Java (or C# for that matter) semantics.