[mort96]

> Most of the languages that have finally clauses also have destructors.

Hm, is that true? I know of finally from Java, JavaScript, C# and Python, and none of them have proper destructors. I mean some of them have object finalizers which can be used to clean up resources whenever the garbage collector comes around to collect the object, but those are not remotely similar to destructors which typically run deterministically at the end of a scope. Python's 'with' syntax comes to mind, but that's very different from C++ and Rust style destructors since you have to explicitly ask the language to clean up resources with special syntax.

Which languages am I missing which have both try..finally and destructors?

[brewmarche]

In C# the closest analogue to a C++ destructor would probably be a `using` block. You’d have to remember to write `using` in front of it, but there are static analysers for this. It gets translated to a `try`–`finally` block under the hood, which calls `Dispose` in `finally`.

    using (var foo = new Foo())
    {
    }
    // foo.Dispose() gets called here, even if there is an exception

Or, to avoid nesting:

    using var foo = new Foo(); // same but scoped to closest current scope

These also is `await using` in case the cleanup is async (`await foo.DisposeAsync()`)

I think Java has something similar called try with resources.

[cogman10]

Java's is

    try (var foo = new Foo()) {
    }
    // foo.close() is called here.

I like the Java method for things like files because if the there's an exception during the close of a file, the regular `IOException` block handles that error the same as it handles a read or write error.

[mort96]

What do you do if you wanna return the file (or an object containing the file) in the happy path but close it in the error path?

[cogman10]

You'd write it like this

    void bar() {
      try (var f = foo()) {
        doMoreHappyPath(f);
      }
      catch(IOException ex) {
        handleErrors();
      }
    }

    File foo() throws IOException {
      File f = openFile();
      doHappyPath(f);
      if (badThing) {
        throw new IOException("Bad thing");
      }
      return f;
    }

That said, I think this is a bad practice (IMO). Generally speaking I think the opening and closing of a resource should happen at the same scope.

Making it non-local is a recipe for an accident.

*EDIT* I've made a mistake while writing this, but I'll leave it up there because it demonstrates my point. The file is left open if a bad thing happens.

[mort96]

In Java, I agree with you that the opening and closing of a resource should happen at the same scope. This is a reasonable rule in Java, and not following it in Java is a recipe for errors because Java isn't RAII.

In C++ and Rust, that rule doesn't make sense. You can't make the mistake of forgetting to close the file.

That's why I say that Java, Python and C#'s context managers aren't remotely the same. They're useful tools for resource management in their respective languages, just like defer is a useful tool for resource management in Go. They aren't "basically RAII".

[cogman10]

> You can't make the mistake of forgetting to close the file.

But you can make a few mistakes that can be hard to see. For example, if you put a mutex in an object you can accidentally hold it open for longer than you expect since you've now bound the life of the mutex to the life of the object you attached it to. Or you can hold a connection to a DB or a file open for longer than you expected by merely leaking out the file handle and not promptly closing it when you are finished with it.

Trying to keep resource open and close in the same scope is an ownership thing. Even for C++ or Rust, I'd consider it not great to leak out RAII resources from out of the scope that acquired them. When you spread that sort of ownership throughout the code it becomes hard to conceptualize what the state of a program would be at any given location.

The exception is memory.

[mort96]

That approach doesn't allow you to move the file into some long lived object or return it in the happy path though, does it?

[actionfromafar]

As someone coming from RAII to C#, you get used to it, I'd say. You "just" have to think differently. Lean into records and immutable objects whenever you can and IDisposable interface ("using") when you can't. It's not perfect but neither is RAII. I'm on a learning path but I'd say I'm more productive in C# than I ever was in C++.

[mort96]

I agree with this. I don't dislike non-RAII languages (even though I do prefer RAII). I was mostly asking a rhetorical question to point out that it really isn't the same at all. As you say, it's not a RAII language, and you have to think differently than when using a RAII language with proper destructors.

[actionfromafar]

Pondering - is there a language similar to C++ (whatever that means, it's huge, but I guess a sprinkle of don't pay for what you don't use and being compiled) which has no raw pointers and such (sacrificing C compatibility) but which is otherwise pretty similar to C++?

[mort96]

Rust is the only one I really know of. It's many things to many people, but to me as a C++ developer, it's a C++ with a better template model, better object lifetime semantics (destructive moves <3) and without all the cruft stemming from C compat and from the 40 years of evolution.

The biggest essential differences between Rust and C++ are probably the borrow checker (sometimes nice, sometimes just annoying, IMO) and the lack of class inheritance hierarchies. But both are RAII languages which compile to native code with a minimal runtime, both have a heavy emphasis on generic programming through templates, both have a "C-style syntax" with braces which makes Rust feel relatively familiar despite its ML influence.

[brewmarche]

You can move the burden of disposing to the caller (return the disposable object and let the caller put it in a using statement).

In addition, if the caller itself is a long-lived object it can remember the object and implement dispose itself by delegating. Then the user of the long-lived object can manage it.

[mort96]

> You can move the burden of disposing to the caller (return the disposable object and let the caller put it in a using statement).

That doesn't help. Not if the function that wants to return the disposable object in the happy path also wants to destroy the disposable object in the error path.

[brewmarche]

You have to write a disposable wrapper to return. Return it in error case too.

    readonly record struct Result<TResult, TDisposable>(TResult? IfHappy, TDisposable? Disposable): IDisposable where TDisposable : IDisposable
    {
        public void Dispose() => Disposable?.Dispose();
    }

[brewmarche]

Usage at call site:

    using (var result = foo.GetSomethingIfLucky())
    {
        if (result.IfHappy is {} success)
        {
            // do something
        }
    }

[dist-epoch]

Technically CPython has deterministic destructors, __del__ always gets called immediately when ref count goes to zero, but it's just an implementation detail, not a language spec thing.

[jchw]

I don't view finalizers and destructors as different concepts. The notion only matters if you actually need cleanup behavior to be deterministic rather than just eventual, or you are dealing with something like thread locals. (Historically, C# even simply called them destructors.)

[mort96]

There's a huge difference in programming model. You can rely on C++ or Rust destructors to free GPU memory, close sockets, free memory owned through an opaque pointer obtained through FFI, implement reference counting, etc.

I've had the displeasure of fixing a Go code base where finalizers were actively used to free opaque C memory and GPU memory. The Go garbage collector obviously didn't consider it high priority to free these 8-byte objects which just wrap a pointer, because it didn't know that the objects were keeping tens of megabytes of C or GPU memory alive. I had to touch so much code to explicitly call Destroy methods in defer blocks to avoid running out of memory.

[cogman10]

For GCed languages, I think finalizers are a mistake. They only serve to make it harder to reason about the code while masking problems. They also have negative impacts on GC performance.

Java is actively removing it's finalizers.

[rramadass]

> I don't view finalizers and destructors as different concepts.

They are fundamentally different concepts.

See Destructors, Finalizers, and Synchronization by Hans Boehm - https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/604131.604153

[jchw]

It would suffice to say I don't always agree with even some of the best in the field, and they don't always agree with each other, either. Anders Hejlsberg isn't exactly a random n00b when it comes to programming language design and still called the C# equivalent a "destructor", though it is now known as a finalizer in line with other programming languages. They are things that clean up resources at the end of the life of an object; the difference between GC'd languages and RAII languages is that in a GC'd runtime the lifespan of an object is non-deterministic. That may very well change the programming model, as it does in many other ways, but it doesn't make the two concepts "fundamentally different" by any means. They're certainly related concepts...

[rramadass]

They are related but fundamentally different. It is a vital semantic difference (influencing the programming model itself) since destructors (C++ style) are synchronous and deterministic while finalizers (Java style) are asynchronous and non-deterministic.

It is because of all the problems that the finalize method was deprecated in Java 9 and marked "deprecated for removal"(JEP 421) in Java 18. More details at https://stackoverflow.com/questions/56139760/why-is-the-fina... and https://inside.java/2022/01/12/podcast-021/

PS: JEP 421: Deprecate Finalization for Removal - https://openjdk.org/jeps/421 Also details alternative features/techniques to use.

[jchw]

I grasp the entirety of why people differentiate "finalizers" from "destructors", but in my opinion, the practical differences in their application are not the result of the concept itself being fundamentally different, it's a result of object lifetimes being different between GC'd and non-GC'd languages. In my opinion, the concept itself is pretty close to identical. You want to clean up resources at the end of the lifetime of an object. And yes, it's practically a mess because the object lifetime ends at a non-deterministic point in the future and usually not even necessarily on the same thread. Being a big fan of Go and having had to occasionally make use of finalizers for lack of a better option in some limited scenarios, I really genuinely do grasp this, but I dispute that it has anything to do with whether or not a language has try...finally, anymore than it has anything to do with a language having any other convenient structured control flow measures, like pattern matching or else blocks on for loops.

(I do also realize that finalizer behavior in some languages is weird, for performance reasons and sometimes just legacy reasons. Go is one such language.)

But I think we've both hit a level of digression that wouldn't be helpful even if we were disagreeing about the facts (which I don't really think we are. I think this is entirely about frames of reference rather than a material dispute over the facts.) Forgetting whether finalizers are truly a form of destructor or not, the point I was trying to make really was that I don't view RAII/scoped destructors as being equivalent or alternatives to things like `finally` blocks or `defer` statements. In C++ you basically use scope guards for everything because they are the only option, but I think C++ would still ultimately benefit from at least having `finally`. You can kind of emulate it, but not 100%: `finally` blocks are outside of the scope of the exception and can throw a new exception, unlike a destructor in an exception frame. Having more options in structured control flow can sometimes add complexity for little gain, but `finally` can genuinely be useful sometimes. (Though I ultimately still prefer errors being passed around as value types, like with std::expected, rather than exception handling blocks.)

I believe the reason why we don't have languages (that I can think of) that demonstrate this exact combination is specifically because try/catch exception blocks fell out of favor at the same time that new compiled/"low-level" programming languages started picking up steam. A lot of new programming language designs that do use explicit lifetimes (Zig, Rust, etc.) simply don't have try...catch style exception blocks in the first place, if they even have anything that resemble exceptions. Even a lot of new garbage collected languages don't use try...catch exceptions, like of course Go.

Now honestly I could've made a better attempt at conveying my position earlier in this thread, but I'm gonna be honest, once I realized I struck a nerve with some people I became pretty unmotivated to bother, sometimes I'm just not in the mood to try to win over the crowd and would rather just let them bury me, at least until the thread died down a bit.

[rramadass]

> not the result of the concept itself being fundamentally different, it's a result of object lifetimes being different between GC'd and non-GC'd languages.

This is the fundamental misunderstanding. The RAII ctor/dtor pattern is a very general mechanism not limited to just managing object (in the OO sense) lifetimes. That is why you don't need finally/defer etc. in C++. You can get all of these policies using just this one mechanism.

The correct way to think about it is as scoped entry and exit function calls i.e. a scoped guard. For example, every C++ programmer writes a LogTrace class to log function (or other scope) entry and exit messages. This is purely exploiting the feature to make function calls with nothing whatever to do with objects (in the sense of managing state) at all. Raymond gives a good example when he points to how wil::scope_exit takes a user-defined lambda function to be run by a dummy object's dtor when it goes out of scope.

> I don't view RAII/scoped destructors as being equivalent or alternatives to things like `finally` blocks or `defer` statements. In C++ you basically use scope guards for everything because they are the only option, but I think C++ would still ultimately benefit from at least having `finally`.

Scope guards using ctor/dtor mechanism is enough to implement all the policies like finally/defer etc. That was the point of the article.

> You can kind of emulate it, but not 100%: `finally` blocks are outside of the scope of the exception and can throw a new exception, unlike a destructor in an exception frame. Having more options in structured control flow can sometimes add complexity for little gain, but `finally` can genuinely be useful sometimes.

The article already points out the main issues (in both non-GC/GC languages) here but it is actually much more nuanced. While it is advised not to throw exceptions from a dtor C++ does give you std::uncaught_exceptions() which one can use for those special times when you must handle/throw exceptions in a dtor. More details at - https://stackoverflow.com/questions/74607300/should-i-use-st... and https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/error/uncaught_exception.h...

Exception handling is always tricky to implement/use in any language since there are multiple models (i.e. Termination vs. Resumption) and a language designer is often constrained in his choice. Wikipedia has a very nice explanation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_handling_(programmin... In particular, see the Eiffel contract approach mentioned in it and then the detailed rationale in Bertrand Meyer's OOSC2 book - https://bertrandmeyer.com/OOSC2/

[adrianN]

Sometimes „eventually“ is „At the end of the process“. For many resources this is not acceptable.