[jstimpfle]

You must mean confusing achievements in the area of creating large maintainable and performant systems on the one hand, with achievements in the area of creating large maintainable and performant systems on the other hand?

And let me incude Ryan Fleury here who graduated from Casey-school with honors, he is maybe the most impressive programmer I know. His work on the raddebugger is outstanding.

[CyberDildonics]

You're still not anywhere close to the thread's topic. Hero worship isn't evidence.

C++’ish approach to memory management (RAII) - that’s not how systems programming or games (I’m told) tend to work

This is the statement that no one seems to be able to back up. Instead it's fans of some internet programmers saying that they must be right about everything because they shipped a game.

I actually like hearing what they have to say, but they aren't right about this and there is no evidence or explanation here from you, them or anyone else.

Instead you start talking about a third person making a debugger for some reason as if the solution to appealing to authority is more appealing to authority.

[jstimpfle]

> This is the statement that no one seems to be able to back up.

Actually there are many explanations of systemic issues arising from reliance on RAII. Both Jon and Casey are very good explaining the matters.

> Instead you start talking about a third person making a debugger for some reason as if the solution to appealing to authority is more appealing to authority.

A third person (already mentioned in a parent comment), who is creating an extremely snappy and powerful debugger using those exact approaches under discussion.

[CyberDildonics]

Actually there are many explanations

So lets hear them.

A third person (already mentioned in a parent comment), who is creating an extremely snappy and powerful debugger

Who cares? They have nothing to do with anything, why are you avoiding a technical discussion of facts to talk about your favorite influencers?

[jstimpfle]

> So lets hear them.

There are few people delivering more in-depth explanations of their claims, like literally thousands of hours of content. You can just look it up. If you disagree, please disagree. Personally I find what they say articulates almost 100% of my independent experience. And I do systems programming in C++ full-time (file systems / desktop app infrastructure). Personally I've made at least 9 serious attempts of building robust and maintainable systems on top of C++ features like RAII and templates and have always returned to simple straightforward C-style code. And I've had to work many times with existing C++ codebases that had bought into these features, and it always seemed like a giant waste of time, a way to add more spaghettis to a hot mess. And also, any technically convincing C++ codebase I've seen always seemed to make only very light use of C++ features. Not going to argue more here.

> Who cares? They have nothing to do with anything

Quite the opposite, it's a third person from the same circle making the same kind of claims (there are more persons), who have, contrary to what you say, actual evidence to back up their claims. You could just go ahead and check these works out yourself and see if it convinces you that the methods they claim to be better are actually better.

[CyberDildonics]

These are classic zero evidence replies. Go and "do your own research", "look it up yourself", and then nothing but repeating your claims and not even realizing that isn't evidence.

Here it's actually worse, I don't even know what the specific claims you're talking about are.

If this was so simple and you know it so well just spell it out.

You can just look it up.

Or you can just look up what literally everyone else does and relies on in systems programming.

I've seen always seemed to make only very light use of C++ features.

So what? You not using something has nothing to do with an actual explanation of its shortcomings, you realize that right?

there are more persons

Then where is the actual evidence and explanation? Why is it so difficult even after multiple replies to have a shred of evidence or technical explanation?

It's you and the three guys you are fans of against the entire world of systems programming, because scope based resource management and ownership is what people need the vast majority of the time because most resource lifetimes are determined by scope.

If you're going to reply again, try to have some explanation of what your claim is and why it makes sense on a technical level instead of just trying to tell someone to go and prove your ambiguous claim for you.

Also saying that you ignoring something is somehow an explanation for why it doesn't work, is like someone claiming helicopters don't work because they don't use them to get around.

[jstimpfle]

I told you what to check out. I'm not regurgitating this, I've done it often enough.

Have you spent 1 minute cloning the raddebugger, 3 seconds to build it, and 0.5 seconds to launch it, to be convinced that it is a solid product?

> It's you and the three guys you are fans of against the entire world of systems programming

What is this "entire world of systems programming"? From what I've seen, there are very few accomplished experts who would disagree a lot with what e.g. Jon/Casey/Ryan have to say.

What are you working on?