[ncruces]

> I don't understand why people insist on simulating a poor substitute for RAII with a feature that is itself almost decent RAII.

RAII doesn't make sense without initialization.

Are you proposing C should add constructors, or that C should make do without defer because it can't add constructors?

[masklinn]

> RAII doesn't make sense without initialization.

Rust has RAII and does not have constructors.

[ncruces]

Rust mandates that every field in a user-defined type is initialized at once. How do you propose to retrofit that into C without "constructors"?

[dwattttt]

C has had designated initializers since C99, if you want you can initialise every struct field at once.

[ncruces]

I encourage you to read (at least) this section of this blog before making simplistic suggestions: https://thephd.dev/just-put-raii-in-c-bro-please-bro-just-on...

How do you mandate initialization, handle copies, move objects, prevent double frees? What's RAII without any of that?

[dwattttt]

You mandate it like you mandate anything else in C. You don't.

You pick C because you want a language that doesn't require a variable to be initialised before mutably referencing it, and you write your defer statements or "destructors" defensively, expecting that a variable could be in any state when it comes time to dispose of it.

Or if you find that unacceptable, you accept that C isn't the language you want. There's many other choices available.

[ncruces]

There's no way to write a "destructor" defensively, if the contents of memory it is trying to "destroy" are undefined.

Whereas it's perfectly possible to only defer a statement when you know the "object" has been properly initialized.

That's why defer makes sense in a language like C (even Go), but RAII does not.