4 ms·

That is only a small fraction of RAII. The trivial fraction. If malloc fails, real RAII gives you an exception, which you may catch somewhere convenient. Real R

That is only a small fraction of RAII. The trivial fraction. If malloc fails, real RAII gives you an exception, which you may catch somewhere convenient. Real RAII runs a constructor. If construction fails, you get an exception. Lacking those, it all has to be done and checked by hand on the spot, and is often wrong, because not tested.

JonChesterfield 4y ago
Not sure that's the part of C++ I'd heap praise on. For one thing, real RAII invokes the destructor, not a constructor. If your constructor throws, the destructor isn't going to be called. If your destructor throws, you're one passing exception away from std::terminate. Plus malloc doesn't throw, though new sometimes does. Or, construction could return an optional/maybe style thing that you branch on, and then you don't need goto (sorry, non-local come-from with pretty branding) in your base language.
- mgaunard 4y ago
  The important part of RAII is that the constructor actually acquires the resource. The fact the OP insisted the important part of RAII is not that but running destructors shows he hasn't understood the most important concept in C++ programming.
  - svvayy 4y ago
    The destructor is the distinguishing feature of RAII. Lots of languages have constructors without RAII because they do not have deterministic destructors. Examples are Python and Java. Can you expound on what your understanding is?
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      The destructor is what distinguishes C++ from everything before and all but Rust even after, but is, as already explained above, just one part. No exceptions, no RAII.
stabbles 4y ago
The downside of C++ is that exceptions can come from any possible function call depth, whereas in C you only have to deal with error return codes. So in that sense it’s easier to deal with errors in C, and harder to test the error paths in C++
- moloch-hai 4y ago
  That is the upside. You don't need to know how far down it happened. If you need to know more, you catch it lower. But most often you don't. Whatever the hell it was didn't work, and you do whatever is called for, then.
  - colejohnson66 4y ago
    Exactly. Being forced to handle errors at every function call sounds great, but then you end being forced to bubble up errors you don't care about like Go does: res, err := func() if err != nil: return nil, err That's not actually handling the error, and exceptions save you from being forced to pretend like you are. Just let it bubble up into the catch block further up the stack.
    - moloch-hai 4y ago
      Or Google dialect. Rust, anyway, captures this foolishness in a macro, which saves lines of source code, but still costs cache footprint, branch predictor slots, and runtime.
      - tialaramex 4y ago
        The Rust try! macro, which I assume is what you're thinking of, has been obsolete for many years - you can still refer to it because the Rust compatibility promise is taken more seriously than in C++ but you will need to use rather awkward syntax to get at it in modern Rust editions since the keyword "try" is reserved since 2018 edition. These days you'd use the Try operator ? which is not a macro, it's an operator. Try is really interesting, it's a unary operator so it takes a single parameter and it maps that parameter into a control flow decision. For Result the effect is similar to what you got out of the try! macro, but of course this operator can be implemented on any type. The standard library provides six implementations, including famously on Option, but also on ControlFlow itself, which is pretty nice. This means across a complex system you can choose to collect Results, and decide what to do about the Results later, (perhaps after you have all of them, or after you've a certain amount) or you can choose the same for the ControlFlow decisions resulting from those Results. You can also turn things on their heads, and decide that what you want to do is return early on success, but continue processing for errors -- which is something that's just unthinkable in an exception world where control flow and success are somehow the same thing. Rust took some years to figure out that's just not true which would be embarrassing if the assumption that it's true wasn't baked into the entire C++ language.

JonChesterfield 4y ago

Not sure that's the part of C++ I'd heap praise on. For one thing, real RAII invokes the destructor, not a constructor. If your constructor throws, the destructor isn't going to be called. If your destructor throws, you're one passing exception away from std::terminate. Plus malloc doesn't throw, though new sometimes does. Or, construction could return an optional/maybe style thing that you branch on, and then you don't need goto (sorry, non-local come-from with pretty branding) in your base language.

mgaunard 4y ago
The important part of RAII is that the constructor actually acquires the resource. The fact the OP insisted the important part of RAII is not that but running destructors shows he hasn't understood the most important concept in C++ programming.
- svvayy 4y ago
  The destructor is the distinguishing feature of RAII. Lots of languages have constructors without RAII because they do not have deterministic destructors. Examples are Python and Java. Can you expound on what your understanding is?
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    The destructor is what distinguishes C++ from everything before and all but Rust even after, but is, as already explained above, just one part. No exceptions, no RAII.

stabbles 4y ago

The downside of C++ is that exceptions can come from any possible function call depth, whereas in C you only have to deal with error return codes. So in that sense it’s easier to deal with errors in C, and harder to test the error paths in C++

moloch-hai 4y ago
That is the upside. You don't need to know how far down it happened. If you need to know more, you catch it lower. But most often you don't. Whatever the hell it was didn't work, and you do whatever is called for, then.
- colejohnson66 4y ago
  Exactly. Being forced to handle errors at every function call sounds great, but then you end being forced to bubble up errors you don't care about like Go does: res, err := func() if err != nil: return nil, err That's not actually handling the error, and exceptions save you from being forced to pretend like you are. Just let it bubble up into the catch block further up the stack.
  - moloch-hai 4y ago
    Or Google dialect. Rust, anyway, captures this foolishness in a macro, which saves lines of source code, but still costs cache footprint, branch predictor slots, and runtime.
    - tialaramex 4y ago
      The Rust try! macro, which I assume is what you're thinking of, has been obsolete for many years - you can still refer to it because the Rust compatibility promise is taken more seriously than in C++ but you will need to use rather awkward syntax to get at it in modern Rust editions since the keyword "try" is reserved since 2018 edition. These days you'd use the Try operator ? which is not a macro, it's an operator. Try is really interesting, it's a unary operator so it takes a single parameter and it maps that parameter into a control flow decision. For Result the effect is similar to what you got out of the try! macro, but of course this operator can be implemented on any type. The standard library provides six implementations, including famously on Option, but also on ControlFlow itself, which is pretty nice. This means across a complex system you can choose to collect Results, and decide what to do about the Results later, (perhaps after you have all of them, or after you've a certain amount) or you can choose the same for the ControlFlow decisions resulting from those Results. You can also turn things on their heads, and decide that what you want to do is return early on success, but continue processing for errors -- which is something that's just unthinkable in an exception world where control flow and success are somehow the same thing. Rust took some years to figure out that's just not true which would be embarrassing if the assumption that it's true wasn't baked into the entire C++ language.