[jstimpfle]

> You bringing up something unrelated doesn't mean anything just because you keep bringing it up.

It's NOT unrelated. It is a real world demonstration of the simplicity possible by custom modeling of allocation and lifetime concerns instead of buying into a fixed scheme set by a language.

> There is one singular question and you seem to think it's absurd to answer it and not veer off into a hundred different directions about unrelated projects and your favorite influencers instead of being able to focus on it.

You made me do it by repeatedly talking down on me in a condescending tone, when I tried to keep it simple and referred to external sources. What the heck. You want a simple reply. I cannot give you one, except for, "RAII is this simplistic solution that makes the language complicated while still being by far not enough to handle interesting use cases. It has turned out to be wrong and misguided every time I've tried to use it, and here are a million examples why".

> If it automates things why would it have a typing cost? That makes zero sense.

It automates generating boring boilerplate code (which is good on one hand but it doesn't reduce the semantic complexity AT ALL, so actually it just promotes doing the wrong thing by making the wrong thing easier). To generate the boilerplate code it requires type machinery. What doesn't make sense about this?

Why don't YOU start telling ME?

>> it will "infect" your codebase,

> How? It can be used or not.

To use it e.g. in containers, you then have to also use it for the things contained -- e.g. unique_ptr<T> or vector<T> or whatever, you will have a bad time if you don't model T's destruction with a C++ destructor too. Also you can't just insert random manually managed objects within a group of RAII managed objects, because that will break the "reverse destructor calls" assumption.

It's a viral thing.

>> It will break modularization of your codebase, leading to subtle but substantive degradation.

>These are strange claims, they don't have any evidence

I explained why: internals have to get moved to public API in practice. This is almost the definition of breaking modularization.

>> This is part of what leads to long compile times

> No it isn't, it's running the same function at the end of a scope. Where are you getting this idea? Templates you could say this about, but a simple concept has nothing to do with it.

Why are you being so stubborn? Destructors (like other methods) practically require classes to be fully exposed (that you can protect them with silly public/private/protected specifiers doesn't change the fact they're exposed), requiring includers to pick up transitive dependencies. That results in huge amount of included code per TU, and results in far too many TUs that have to be rebuilt on incremental changes.

This is a very well known thing.

> "Temporal coupling" doesn't make any sense, you have to deallocate memory anyway, why would it be any different to not have to write the line explicitly?

Why doesn't it make sense? In practice, allocation is coupled with initialization and destruction is coupled with deallocation. It's literally in the name, Resource Allocation Is Initialization. You can work around it, sure, but it's painful and literally just an escape hook to escape the very thing you're arguing for.

> If you want to have a real explanation, especially to yourself, you should probably show a scenario on godbolt or something like that. It really seems like people have led you down a path that doesn't make sense and you haven't gone back and tested it yourself.

ON GODBOLT? Are you kidding me? I've been arguing all day how RAII is a simplistic rigid mechanism builtin to a language that will lead to slow creeping systemic issues, in practice, in my experience, in larger and more complicated systems, especially with performance and abstraction requirements. I CAN NOT explain to you what sucks about it in a godbolt. You can use RAII fine for simpler programs. You can use it fine in a godbolt. You can use it fine for leetcode. etc.

Asking for a Godbolt example of architectural coupling is like asking for an assembly listing proving that a database schema is hard to migrate.

[CyberDildonics]

It's NOT unrelated. It is a real world demonstration of the simplicity possible by custom modeling of allocation and lifetime concerns instead of buying into a fixed scheme set by a language.

No, it's claiming that because someone can do something that there must not be a better way to do it. Games were written in assembly, that doesn't mean that's the best way to do it.

I've been arguing all day

You've been avoiding it all day then finally making claims after six replies.

vector<T> or whatever, you will have a bad time if you don't model T's destruction with a C++ destructor too

So? What do you think that looks like in C? For loops and nested for loops, which all need to be hand written or copy and pasted and to happen at the right time. If you start dealing with early returns or gotos you need to have all those nested for loops copy and pasted multiple times.

I explained why: internals have to get moved to public API in practice.

This makes no sense, you would just move something into a function if it needs to take ownership. In C you have nothing to indicate ownership and every function in every API needs to have auxiliary documentation to say whether it is going to own the memory you give it or not.

Why are you being so stubborn?

I keep asking for the same thing and you keep running away from it.

Destructors (like other methods) practically require classes to be fully exposed

This doesn't make any sense, it automates something you have to do any way.

ON GODBOLT? Are you kidding me?

Is there something wrong with an actual program that shows actual evidence? This seems like a basic demonstration is earth shattering to you.

I CAN NOT explain to you what sucks about it in a godbolt.

If you can't demonstrate it with actual source code then you just have claims and no evidence.

[jstimpfle]

> If you can't demonstrate it with actual source code then you just have claims and no evidence.

I can NOT demonstrate it in a tiny godbolt because the effects I am talking about don't apply on a micro-scale.

I CAN demonstrate it with actual source code, but you are unwilling to look it up. You are disagreeing without making the tiniest effort. Not being willing to make an effort by itself is fine. But you're being contrarian in the worst and laziest way.

Do you not understand the concept that I can't explain the world to you from the ground up? You say no to everything without trying to understand it. Your "rebuttals" indicate you're not willing to follow me in the slightest and you reject even the most common lore (for example the thing about C++ class features (destructors, methods...) leading to exposure of internals in public headers, leading to every TU including the world). Or you are intentionally trolling me. You are being uncooperative and you're the single worst interaction I've had on this platform. Now please get off my lawn.

[CyberDildonics]

To recap, there are all sort of detrimental effects to just freeing memory when a variable goes out of scope, but they can't be explained or demonstrated in any way.

I could tell it was all going to go this way from the second comment, I'm always fascinated by people with rock solid beliefs that can't explain them in any way.

I can NOT demonstrate it in a tiny godbolt because the effects I am talking about don't apply on a micro-scale.

They do because it's just automatic resources within a scope.

I CAN demonstrate it with actual source code, but you are unwilling to look it up.

Why don't you link something besides a name of a big C project and explain it. The idea that someone making a project in C somehow means other features and tools are terrible isn't even logic. That would mean that one project in a language from the 70s would negate every garbage collected and dynamically typed scripting language. It makes no sense in any way. It's like saying because someone road a bike 20 miles cars are terrible.

Do you not understand the concept that I can't explain the world to you from the ground up?

You don't seem to be able to explain anything at all.

You say no to everything without trying to understand it.

You don't give any explanations, they are just claims, do you understand that? Do you know what evidence is? It's the thing you say you can't provide.

You think that somehow something simple like automatically running a function you have to run anyway is a problem, it's nonsense.

By your own logic the fact that https://github.com/chromium/chromium has 1.7 million commits to your project's 4,385 means that modern C++ is more than 380 times as effective.

for example the thing about C++ class features (destructors, methods...) leading to exposure of internals in public headers

That's a matter of dependencies and doesn't have anything to do with destructors.

you're the single worst interaction I've had on this platform.

Now we're to the "I don't like how you're saying it" part of the no evidence playbook. This happens when someone can't admit that they don't have any information and they can't believe that people won't accept them repeating claims as evidence.

Your own project has plenty of the bugs that destructors and contained memory allocation avoid. Raw heap allocations, raw mem copies etc.

https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/855

Here's a complex memory cleanup race condition that's 'solved' with a sleep function. https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/735

even the most common lore

I think it's time to admit to yourself that you have accepted some internet youtuber personalities as a religious belief and that you haven't questioned these beliefs with thoughts that go beyond the claims of the cult.

[jstimpfle]

> Your own project

First, tone it down a little please, would you? It's not "my project", what is wrong with you?

> ... has plenty of the bugs that destructors and contained memory allocation avoid. Raw heap allocations, raw mem copies etc. https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/735 . Here's a complex memory cleanup race condition that's 'solved' with a sleep function. https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/855

Now you've provided two links and they contain little evidence to back up your claims. Linking issue 735 suggests that you've misunderstood the part about a "Sleep", which evidences either your lack of capacity to grok the context of the issue, or evidences your unhealthy adversarial stance (I strongly suspect the latter).

> You don't give any explanations, they are just claims, do you understand that? Do you know what evidence is? It's the thing you say you can't provide.

You haven't been able to take the most obvious uncontentious claim from me. But if I'm not explaining as you say, what are YOU doing?

Are you seriously too stubborn to accept that exposing a destructor (or any other method) in a header file requires exposing the class's definition (private method declarations including signatures, include internally used headers for internally used data structures, which again have methods, which have dependencies...) in C++? And when any of those not-real-dependencies changes, you have to rebuild everything needlessly? Are you somehow mentally unable to see how long compile times can subtly degrade a project over time?

Because I didn't need any youtuber personality to find that out for myself. And for some humility, the fact that I was able to see that suggests it's not particularly hard to find out.

> Why don't you link something besides a name of a big C project and explain it. The idea that someone making a project in C somehow means other features and tools are terrible isn't even logic. That would mean that one project in a language from the 70s would negate every garbage collected and dynamically typed scripting language.

And also I didn't claim it, you fantasized it and I can't help but ridicule you for having such wild ideas. To make such claims you would actually have a closer look at a project.

> By your own logic the fact that https://github.com/chromium/chromium has 1.7 million commits to your project's 4,385 means that modern C++ is more than 380 times as effective.

How is that by my own logic? But please accept that this is the work of mainly 1-2 persons, and compare _hours_ of build time (35 MLOC) to 3 seconds of build time (300K LOC).

> You think that somehow something simple like automatically running a function you have to run anyway is a problem, it's nonsense.

You are misrepresenting what I've said so badly it's not funny anymore. I've said multiple times that maybe this function shouldn't even exist. And even if the function has to exist, maybe it shouldn't be coupled so hard, at a language level, with the actual state & logic definitions. I did provide reasons why I've perceived the coupling to be an architectural problem.

I would be very open to a discussion when this can or can not be a serious problem and what are possible tradeoffs and points in the design space. It wouldn't make me feel bad and wouldn't take away from my claim that there is actual evidence for the issues being discussed. But with a person like you, that's not possible.

> That's a matter of dependencies and doesn't have anything to do with destructors.

I've explained multiple times why I think it does. If you want a destructor declared in C++, you have to give the full class definition.

> Now we're to the "I don't like how you're saying it" part of the no evidence playbook. This happens when someone can't admit that they don't have any information and they can't believe that people won't accept them repeating claims as evidence.

No, it happens when I can't believe how you haven't managed to stop talking down on me instead of making an effort to be anything other than an annoying adversary. That's all.

> I think it's time to admit to yourself that you have accepted some internet youtuber personalities as a religious belief and that you haven't questioned these beliefs with thoughts that go beyond the claims of the cult.

I think it's time for you to shut up. You are providing zero evidence for your baseless (even counter-factual) accusations towards myself. What you say makes ZERO sense.

[CyberDildonics]

First, tone it down a little please,

I think it's time for you to shut up

you fantasized it

your lack of capacity to grok the context of the issue

Now we're firmly into the insults phase. You can just admit that you don't know about something or that you don't have evidence, or you can ask questions, but resorting to insults instead of just saying "I don't know" or "I haven't considered that" or "I'm fine with what I'm using so I haven't worried about what other people are doing" is unfortunate.

you've misunderstood the part about a "Sleep"

I repeated what was in the comments. This is another example of claims without evidence, you realize that right? You didn't explain it and how I was wrong, you just said "no, nu uh".

3 seconds of build time

Are you talking about build times now? What happened to all the stuff about being terrible for the APIs and so toxic for the whole system that you can't write anything in godbolt?

how you haven't managed to stop talking down on me

Now it's time to play both sides and fling insults but pretend that me asking for evidence is talking down to you.

I've explained multiple times why I think it does. If you want a destructor declared in C++, you have to give the full class definition.

Finally an explanation of some sort. Too bad this isn't true. Do you know that the implementation can be in a compilation unit just like C?

you are providing zero evidence for your baseless (even counter-factual) accusations towards myself. What you say makes ZERO sense.

You believe things without evidence and you have said where they come from. Then when asked for evidence you grasp at anything from insults to completely unrelated things like a single program that you like which demonstrates nothing. Those are the actual facts.

[jstimpfle]

> Now we're firmly into the insults phase.

We have been from about your 2nd comment on.

> "I haven't considered that"

Considered WHAT?

> I repeated what was in the comments. This is another example of claims without evidence, you realize that right? You didn't explain it and how I was wrong, you just said "no, nu uh".

I was merely giving you a second chance to notice by yourself that the Sleep-Code in question is code that is being debugged, not part of this project. But instead of double checking, again you've been relentlessly continuing on your trajectory.

You've ended up furthering your wild accusations without entertaining the possibility that I might be not completely wrong on all fronts, and you might be only half right (or less).

> Are you talking about build times now? What happened to all the stuff about being terrible for the APIs and so toxic for the whole system that you can't write anything in godbolt?

It's one of the topics, one of the manifestations of the systemic issues I was talking about, if you had paid any sort of attention.

> Finally an explanation of some sort. Too bad this isn't true. Do you know that the implementation can be in a compilation unit just like C?

You are still not understanding? I gathered you seem to be a game developer of some sorts but you don't understand the simplest basic facts about C++?

Please show me how you can call a destructor in C++ without seeing the declaration of the destructor. (I mean calling it directly of course, since calling it indirectly would refute your claim that a destructor is needed -- since you can't have an arbitrary intermediate function called automatically by RAII).

Or show me how you can see the declaration of the destructor without seeing the definition of the class.

JUST DO IT. SHOW THE EVIDENCE. DONT TALK.