5 ms·

C doesn't have destructors, does it?

vkazanov 8y ago
Yeah... Actually adding something like defer {...clean up code...} would be really nice. But who are we to ask..? Just programmers, i.e. mere mortals nobody really cares about. :-)
stinos 8y ago
You can use C++ as some kind of C with destructors though :P Scoped cleanup is really a nice thing.. But then you also want templates of course to get rid of your void*. And oh, wait, what's that? A cross-platform thread implementation (well, sort of, depends on platform)? A string thing which I can search without strstr? Anonymous functions which capture? Auto? Gimme gimme :]
- beefhash 8y ago
  > You can use C++ as some kind of C with destructors though :P Scoped cleanup is really a nice thing.. C++ is not a strict superset of C. You actually have to cast void pointers, for example. > But then you also want templates of course to get rid of your void*. No, actually, I think I can live without that, but thank you. > And oh, wait, what's that? A cross-platform thread implementation (well, sort of, depends on platform)? C11, threads.h. Been there, got that. > A string thing which I can search without strstr? Okay, I'll give you that, string handling is hell. > Anonymous functions which capture? Have their uses, but I'm not sure if C is really the right place for it. > Auto? auto (as used in C++11 and later) is a solution in need of a problem in C. When you don't have piles of templates and iterators, you also tend not to need to automatically derive types. In a world where signed/unsigned integer comparison can have fatal consequences, you probably do want to be very sure about your types.
  - rubber_duck 8y ago
    >C++ is not a strict subset of C. I think you flipped this :) ?
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      I mean, it’s not wrong…
    - beefhash 8y ago
      Oops. Edited a fix in.
  - stinos 8y ago
    > C++ is not a strict superset of C. I know that. I use both C and C++ practically daily. The post was partly joking. But only partly (for example of course I could live without templates if really needed but seriously they make some jobs a lot better and easier). Hence I aptly phrased it some kind of C hoping (idly it seems) no one would trip over it because it's obviously not C.
- Dylan16807 8y ago
  I don't think those other features are half as compelling as you think they are.
  - stinos 8y ago
    Using both C and C++, each in their place, I actually do think they are.
    - Dylan16807 8y ago
      Then why ever use C if they're that compelling? I'm not really understanding how wanting one little thing from C++ implies diving all the way in.
      - stinos 8y ago
        Then why ever use C Because some platforms I've used it on did't have proper C++ support. Or because a project I contribute to is already written in C. Or because of limited resources. Etc. I'm not really understanding how wanting one little thing from C++ implies diving all the way in. It's just an example of a possible train of thought. And I wouldn't call something like templates 'one little thing'. So suppose there's a choice between both, and no limit on resources etc, and I could go for everything C but templates could make everything easier then just going for C++ instead is an option. Even when not going 'all in' and writing what looks like standard C + template support.
        Dylan16807 8y ago
        > And I wouldn't call something like templates 'one little thing'. Agreed. But templates aren't the one little thing, they're something you said would be 'next'. The 'one little thing' is a way to replace the GOTOs used for releasing resources. I think it's an easy argument that when people are repeatedly building a pattern out of GOTO, there's a gap in the control flow tools that a language gives you.
- maxxxxx 8y ago
  Sometimes I wonder if a C++ without inheritance would be the right thing. All the crazy design abuses I have seen were around inheritance. Other things like auto and anonymous functions are just super useful and I wouldn't want to miss them.
- jfoutz 8y ago
  Auto is already taken in C. It’s the default, rather than register or static, so you hardly ever see it
  - kazinator 8y ago
    auto was taken in exactly the same way in C++ until fairly recently. They re-purposed it because it was obsolescent. auto was already in vanishing disuse in C at the time ANSI C came out in 1989. The C++ use of auto resurrects an aspect of the way auto was used in the C predecessor languages B and NB. In these pre-C languages, everything was an integer cell. A declaration of local variables looked like this: auto x, y; the auto meant automatic storage (stack), but the real purpose here is syntactic: the auto is a declaration specifier, which makes the above construct a declaration. There is no indication of type, because it is implicit. Without the auto it would look like a comma expression with no effect. This implicit typing survived into C for "implicit int" return values, like "main () {...}". But type specifiers were introduced and became mandatory in declarations, and so auto became unnecessary verbiage since all it did now was specify a storage class that was already the default one. C++ resurrect the syntactic use of auto in a way: once again, it provides declaration syntax that allows the type specifier to be omitted. This time, of course, that type is inferred rather than assumed integer.
    - jfoutz 8y ago
      This is a great thoughtful reply to my terse, shallow comment. Thank you. It’s insightful
shaklee3 8y ago
Not the language, but some compilers have something similar: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2053029/how-exactly-does-attribute-constructor-work https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2053029/how-exactly-does...

Yeah... Actually adding something like defer {...clean up code...} would be really nice. But who are we to ask..? Just programmers, i.e. mere mortals nobody really cares about. :-)

stinos 8y ago

You can use C++ as some kind of C with destructors though :P Scoped cleanup is really a nice thing.. But then you also want templates of course to get rid of your void*. And oh, wait, what's that? A cross-platform thread implementation (well, sort of, depends on platform)? A string thing which I can search without strstr? Anonymous functions which capture? Auto? Gimme gimme :]

beefhash 8y ago
> You can use C++ as some kind of C with destructors though :P Scoped cleanup is really a nice thing.. C++ is not a strict superset of C. You actually have to cast void pointers, for example. > But then you also want templates of course to get rid of your void*. No, actually, I think I can live without that, but thank you. > And oh, wait, what's that? A cross-platform thread implementation (well, sort of, depends on platform)? C11, threads.h. Been there, got that. > A string thing which I can search without strstr? Okay, I'll give you that, string handling is hell. > Anonymous functions which capture? Have their uses, but I'm not sure if C is really the right place for it. > Auto? auto (as used in C++11 and later) is a solution in need of a problem in C. When you don't have piles of templates and iterators, you also tend not to need to automatically derive types. In a world where signed/unsigned integer comparison can have fatal consequences, you probably do want to be very sure about your types.
- rubber_duck 8y ago
  >C++ is not a strict subset of C. I think you flipped this :) ?
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    I mean, it’s not wrong…
  - beefhash 8y ago
    Oops. Edited a fix in.
- stinos 8y ago
  > C++ is not a strict superset of C. I know that. I use both C and C++ practically daily. The post was partly joking. But only partly (for example of course I could live without templates if really needed but seriously they make some jobs a lot better and easier). Hence I aptly phrased it some kind of C hoping (idly it seems) no one would trip over it because it's obviously not C.
Dylan16807 8y ago
I don't think those other features are half as compelling as you think they are.
- stinos 8y ago
  Using both C and C++, each in their place, I actually do think they are.
  - Dylan16807 8y ago
    Then why ever use C if they're that compelling? I'm not really understanding how wanting one little thing from C++ implies diving all the way in.
    - stinos 8y ago
      Then why ever use C Because some platforms I've used it on did't have proper C++ support. Or because a project I contribute to is already written in C. Or because of limited resources. Etc. I'm not really understanding how wanting one little thing from C++ implies diving all the way in. It's just an example of a possible train of thought. And I wouldn't call something like templates 'one little thing'. So suppose there's a choice between both, and no limit on resources etc, and I could go for everything C but templates could make everything easier then just going for C++ instead is an option. Even when not going 'all in' and writing what looks like standard C + template support.
      - Dylan16807 8y ago
        > And I wouldn't call something like templates 'one little thing'. Agreed. But templates aren't the one little thing, they're something you said would be 'next'. The 'one little thing' is a way to replace the GOTOs used for releasing resources. I think it's an easy argument that when people are repeatedly building a pattern out of GOTO, there's a gap in the control flow tools that a language gives you.
maxxxxx 8y ago
Sometimes I wonder if a C++ without inheritance would be the right thing. All the crazy design abuses I have seen were around inheritance. Other things like auto and anonymous functions are just super useful and I wouldn't want to miss them.
jfoutz 8y ago
Auto is already taken in C. It’s the default, rather than register or static, so you hardly ever see it
- kazinator 8y ago
  auto was taken in exactly the same way in C++ until fairly recently. They re-purposed it because it was obsolescent. auto was already in vanishing disuse in C at the time ANSI C came out in 1989. The C++ use of auto resurrects an aspect of the way auto was used in the C predecessor languages B and NB. In these pre-C languages, everything was an integer cell. A declaration of local variables looked like this: auto x, y; the auto meant automatic storage (stack), but the real purpose here is syntactic: the auto is a declaration specifier, which makes the above construct a declaration. There is no indication of type, because it is implicit. Without the auto it would look like a comma expression with no effect. This implicit typing survived into C for "implicit int" return values, like "main () {...}". But type specifiers were introduced and became mandatory in declarations, and so auto became unnecessary verbiage since all it did now was specify a storage class that was already the default one. C++ resurrect the syntactic use of auto in a way: once again, it provides declaration syntax that allows the type specifier to be omitted. This time, of course, that type is inferred rather than assumed integer.
  - jfoutz 8y ago
    This is a great thoughtful reply to my terse, shallow comment. Thank you. It’s insightful

shaklee3 8y ago

Not the language, but some compilers have something similar: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2053029/how-exactly-does-attribute-constructor-work https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2053029/how-exactly-does...