[grimlck]

Interesting how java is the only language included in the title, but the slides have the opinion that C#, Ruby and Python all suck as well.

Seems like a cheap way to get upvotes.

[rst]

And there actually is an idiomatic way to avoid the problem in Ruby:

   File.open("...") do |f|
     firstline = f.readline
     ... stuff that might throw an exception ...
   end

If the "stuff" throws an exception, the file gets closed automatically. And while File is a library class, it's getting no special favors here --- any pure ruby library can easily implement similar APIs, and ActiveRecord's connection pool, for example, actually does.

[mullr]

Which counts as the sugar which he mentions. See also "using" in C#. These are pretty clearly design warts. WPF (C# UI library) jumps through some interesting hoops to make it look like all your resources can be properly garbage collected, but even then it tends to come back and bite you for any non-trivial application.

[Someone]

One man's sugar is a other man's carbohydrates.

The argument for try...finally, using, lisp's (with-open-file...), etc. is that it makes it clear that there is 'invisible' code at the end of the block.

I suspect that is the reason for the 'scope' sugar in D. Its advantage is that it is more light-weight; its disadvantage that it does not stand out more. I guess it depends on what you think your audience can handle which is better for your case. I do not think there are many programmers that need java's very explicit try-finally because they cannot grasp e.g. what D provides, but I also have been surprised at times by the, let's say, intelligence, of programmers I met.

[bonzoesc]

It doesn't really taste like syntactic sugar though; it's a special functionality of the standard library, and you could easily get away without knowing about the Java/C-style API of keeping a file handle that has to be controlled around.

[CodeMage]

Out of the three languages he mentions as having syntactic sugar, he was wrong only in Ruby's case. Like you said, it's not a specific syntactic sugar for Dispose pattern, unlike C#'s "using" and Python's "with".

[JoachimSchipper]

Honest question: what's the difference between Ruby and Python/C# here?

[CodeMage]

Let's look at rst's example:

   File.open("...") do |f|
     ... stuff that might throw an exception ...
   end

The syntax you see here is for passing a block to a method. In this case, you're passing a block to File.open, which opens the file, executes your block with it and then makes sure to close the file no matter what.

In Python, you would do:

   with open("x.txt") as f:
     ... stuff that might throw an exception ...

What this does is evaluate open("x.txt"), call the __enter__ method on the resulting value (called the context guard), assign the result of the __enter__ method to f, executes the body of the with statement and makes sure to call __exit__ method of the guard.

The difference is that the syntax used in the Ruby example uses is not syntactic sugar for Dispose pattern, it's part of Ruby's syntax for working with blocks in general, whereas the syntax used in Python example is syntactic sugar meant for Dispose pattern (but can be used for other stuff too).

[JoachimSchipper]

To be fair, the author mentions that his is a Java school and (presumably, therefore) gives most attention to Java.

[keltex]

He sort of glosses over the "syntatic sugar" in C#. Which is simply:

  using(var resource = new Resource())
  {
  // potential code that throws exception  
  }

[kjetil]

Java finally (pun intended) gets a similar feature in Java 7 later this year: try-with-resources:

http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/technotes/guides/language...

[puredanger]

It's unclear to me why he says that the JDK7 addition doesn't really solve the problem. It seems to me that it is exactly this problem that ARM blocks are trying to solve. It's still not as clean as leveraging deconstructors when an object goes out of scope but it's much better than before.

[mquander]

Well, it's an awkward solution, because exceptions have this general problem of blowing away everything you're doing, and it's only a solution for this one case.

The solution to this problem that makes sense to me is either conditions and restarts a la Common Lisp, or a type system that can handle multiple return values of different types in a sane way (e.g. return either a result or an error code and then pattern match against them) so that you don't always need to throw an exception in order to deal with an error.

[barrkel]

Exceptions are little more than a formalization of a particular pattern of what Haskell might call the Either monad for return values, combined with pattern matching on the error type, and automatic unwinding. A condition system has positive value; but multiple return types with error codes alongside, like Go, are a regression from exceptions, IMO.

[DanWaterworth]

And in python you'd use the with construct.

[MostAwesomeDude]

To expand on this a bit:

  with open("some.filename") as f:
   ...

f is an opened file which is automatically closed. This isn't strictly necessary in Python, since files are flushed and closed when reaped, including in case of exception, but it's useful. You can also do this with all of the threading primitives:

  with threading.Lock():
   do_that_one_contentious_thing()

Useless syntactic sugar? Maybe. It's an explicit scope which makes certain guarantees, though, so it's not just fluff.

What was his other example? DB connections? Well, in Python, the DB API requires that DB connections not easily leak, but if you're stuck with a crappy driver, you can still auto-close your connections:

  with contextlib.closing(dbapi.Connection(...)) as handle:
   cursor = handle.cursor()
   ...

So it's definitely possible.

I think it's unfair of him to pick on Ruby and Python just because their syntax is more oriented towards assuming the garbage collector is non-sucky and exceptions aren't expensive.

Edit: Fixed formatting.