[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.

[CyberDildonics]

We have been from about your 2nd comment on.

Nope, if you think forming beliefs from youtubers is so negative, don't do it.

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.

Nope, destructors have nothing to do with this and this was never something you mentioned before. If it was you could show it with godbolt.

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++?

Show me. They are just functions, usually one or two lines.

Please show me how you can call a destructor in C++ without seeing the declaration of the destructor.

You have declarations of functions the same as in C, did you try this?

JUST DO IT. SHOW THE EVIDENCE. DONT TALK.

Show me what you're talking about in godbolt.

[jstimpfle]

> Nope, destructors have nothing to do with this and this was never something you mentioned before. If it was you could show it with godbolt.

How about you simply Ctrl+F for "build time" or "compile time" and admit you have been lying, have been extremely adversarial, and have been incredibly lazy?

> Show me. They are just functions, usually one or two lines.

Isn't it strange that I'm now creating a godbolt containing absolute C++ basics as a youtuber personality fangirl, since apparently I'm only repeating stuff I don't understand, which has to be why I can't express myself and provide evidence?

It is beyond me how you don't seem to know what I'm talking about, but here you go... This should provide reasonable evidence of the lack of ergonomics when using C++, and how problematic this class stuff is from various technical standpoints.

As you mentioned, in C style programming, we could instead simply forward declare a struct, than forward declare some functions. One line for each. Good header hygiene. Clean. Done. But noo, this is C++ and we can't have straightforward code and low coupling.

Full link: https://godbolt.org/#z:OYLghAFBqd5QCxAYwPYBMCmBRdBLAF1QCcAaP...

[CyberDildonics]

How about you simply Ctrl+F for "build time" or "compile time" and admit you have been lying, have been extremely adversarial, and have been incredibly lazy?

More insults but there is no difference here.

I looked at your godbolt link, which part of this does C avoid? Is your whole argument here that you have to define a class' data even though you have to do the same thing in C?

Is it your argument against an optional feature seriously that you can't use the PIMPL pattern from the 90s ? Holy mother of god, that's what is so important? Every struct and class definition you have ever written compiles in a fraction of a second on hardware from 15 years ago this makes no sense at all. It even took you an entire novel of "nu uh" and "this program was written in C so everything else is bad" to get there.

What happened to all the toxic program destroying architecture effects? Now it boils down to something that is no different but without it all the same memory bugs persist.

[jstimpfle]

> More insults but there is no difference here.

Rebutting your wild and easily disproved claims where it's necessary.

> I looked at your godbolt link, which part of this does C avoid?

Should I spell it out again for you? With non-class programming, you can do

    struct Foo;
    struct Bar;
    Bar *bar_create();
    void bar_destroy(Bar *bar);
    void foo_doThing(Foo *foo);
    Foo *foo_create(int x, int y, Bar *bar);
    void foo_destroy(Foo *foo);

And that's literally the API, clean and readable. Now granted, it doesn't do RAII, but here's the essence of the API, in a form that you can actually improve and develop and refactor, and which doesn't require you to rebuild the world if you changed something in a remote corner of the codebase.

This is super well known common lore, and if you haven't noticed this yourself and haven't heard many people talking about this, you simply don't know what you're talking about.

> Every struct and class definition you have ever written compiles in a fraction of a second on hardware from 15 years ago this makes no sense at all.

I'm not repeating once again how this requires you to include the world for the smallest thing which is extremely painful.

> Is it your argument against an optional feature seriously that you can't use the PIMPL pattern from the 90s ? Holy mother of god, that's what is so important? Every struct and class definition you have ever written compiles in a fraction of a second on hardware from 15 years ago this makes no sense at all. It even took you an entire novel of "nu uh" and "this program was written in C so everything else is bad" to get there.

This is not about single-build times (which are much more affected by by template metaprogramming), but about quadratic incremental rebuild scaling. And "in a fraction of a second" is a ridiculous argument when it's well known that C++ single build times are spectacularly bad and developers have to wait way too much for clean rebuilds too.

You just don't get it. And no, you don't do PIMPL. It doesn't scale at all. It's realistic to PIMPL a plain struct once in a while, but NOT with C++ classes with methods etc on a regular basis. It's not ergonomic to do so, it requires even much more boilerplate to do the simplest thing, and it makes it incredibly hard to change and fix and evolve anything. Plus, PIMPL does add a runtime indirection btw. It's BAD.

Again, I know what I'm talking down not because I'm repeating what "my heroes" said but because I've actually tried to make it work, many times. It doesn't work. And you're not doing PIMPL either. Want to know how I know? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK AND YOU ARE JUST TALKING.

> Now it boils down to something that is no different but without it all the same memory bugs persist.

You can't be serious. Now you claim that's the only thing I said? No, I've said many other things. You're a loudmouth who doesn't understand the most basic thing, so we have to spend days before you accept the tiniest straightforward common sense argument that you could just google. Do you want to go down the next rabbit hole? Because I don't, I'm so done with you.