4 ms·

What does this have to do with the article? This sounds like you're here gloating about some pedantic argument you made 4 years ago. And of course we are only h

What does this have to do with the article? This sounds like you're here gloating about some pedantic argument you made 4 years ago. And of course we are only hearing your side, so of course you're the hero. And judging by the fact that this is currently the top comment, I guess this is what other people come to HN (now) to read in the comments. Color me confused.

quietbritishjim 3y ago
Newer comments tend to float near the top for a while to give them a chance to get some upvotes.
moralestapia 3y ago
>What does this have to do with the article? Did you read it? It's about GC in C++ being a relative obscure feature that is now going to be removed. >some pedantic argument you made 4 years ago I just shared an anecdote related to it and I thought it'd be appropriate bc. this is/was quite likely the only chance I'd have in life to talk about this very very very specific situation with people that would understand it. And yes, it's getting a few upvotes, weird thing to be mad at that but to each its own.
- skitter 3y ago
  It was in the spec but never implemented, so it's obly a feature of C++ if you take the stance that there are no real implementations of C++.
  - moralestapia 3y ago
    IIRC it was present in Clang back at the time (which was relevant to us as we were using it); not sure about gcc or others.
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    If you want to go this way, then take a look at compiler support matrix for last few language versions - if having an implementation is necessary for something in spec to "be a feature of C++", then C++20 and C++23 are still missing some features they're supposed to have.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Several features in ISO are yet to be fully implemented, there are compilers still catching up with C++17. GC isn't the first one to victim of such lack of implementations, only EDG implemented C++98 external templates, for example.
    - pbsd 3y ago
      extern templates are a C++11 feature. export templates are the removed C++98 feature.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        Thanks for the correction, I meant obviously export templates.
- Kranar 3y ago
  We should be clear, GC was never a feature in C++. What these features do, which are being removed, is make it easier to implement a GC allocator in a standard conforming and portable fashion. Current GCs in C++, such as Boehm's GC, depend on platform specific hacks that are incredibly brittle. As it turns out, these features do not make it easier to actually implement a GC allocator in C++, so they are being removed. I think most people can differentiate between a language providing a feature as a first class native property, and a library or feature built on top of that language. Most people would not argue against the position that C++ does not contain a web browser as a feature, even though it's possible to build a web browser using C++. Similarly, C++ does not and has never had garbage collection, but for a time the standard did provide facilities that was supposed to make it easier to implement a garbage collection library.
ziddoap 3y ago
>I guess this is what other people come to HN (now) to read in the comments. Reading comments (loosely-related, tangential, meta, whatever) that generate potentially interesting discussion? That's pretty much the only reason I've visited HN for years and years. What do you mean "now"?

quietbritishjim 3y ago

Newer comments tend to float near the top for a while to give them a chance to get some upvotes.

moralestapia 3y ago

>What does this have to do with the article? Did you read it? It's about GC in C++ being a relative obscure feature that is now going to be removed. >some pedantic argument you made 4 years ago I just shared an anecdote related to it and I thought it'd be appropriate bc. this is/was quite likely the only chance I'd have in life to talk about this very very very specific situation with people that would understand it. And yes, it's getting a few upvotes, weird thing to be mad at that but to each its own.

skitter 3y ago
It was in the spec but never implemented, so it's obly a feature of C++ if you take the stance that there are no real implementations of C++.
- moralestapia 3y ago
  IIRC it was present in Clang back at the time (which was relevant to us as we were using it); not sure about gcc or others.
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  If you want to go this way, then take a look at compiler support matrix for last few language versions - if having an implementation is necessary for something in spec to "be a feature of C++", then C++20 and C++23 are still missing some features they're supposed to have.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Several features in ISO are yet to be fully implemented, there are compilers still catching up with C++17. GC isn't the first one to victim of such lack of implementations, only EDG implemented C++98 external templates, for example.
  - pbsd 3y ago
    extern templates are a C++11 feature. export templates are the removed C++98 feature.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Thanks for the correction, I meant obviously export templates.
Kranar 3y ago
We should be clear, GC was never a feature in C++. What these features do, which are being removed, is make it easier to implement a GC allocator in a standard conforming and portable fashion. Current GCs in C++, such as Boehm's GC, depend on platform specific hacks that are incredibly brittle. As it turns out, these features do not make it easier to actually implement a GC allocator in C++, so they are being removed. I think most people can differentiate between a language providing a feature as a first class native property, and a library or feature built on top of that language. Most people would not argue against the position that C++ does not contain a web browser as a feature, even though it's possible to build a web browser using C++. Similarly, C++ does not and has never had garbage collection, but for a time the standard did provide facilities that was supposed to make it easier to implement a garbage collection library.

ziddoap 3y ago

>I guess this is what other people come to HN (now) to read in the comments. Reading comments (loosely-related, tangential, meta, whatever) that generate potentially interesting discussion? That's pretty much the only reason I've visited HN for years and years. What do you mean "now"?