4 ms·

I can't say I've heard of a commonly used definition of "GC language" that includes C++ and excludes C. If anything, my impression is that both C and C++ are us

I can't say I've heard of a commonly used definition of "GC language" that includes C++ and excludes C. If anything, my impression is that both C and C++ are usually held up as exemplars of non-GC languages.

9rx 11mo ago
C++ didn't add GC until relatively recently, to be fair. When people from 30 years ago get an idea stuck in their head they don't usually ever change their understanding even as life continues to march forward. This isn't limited to software. If you look around you'll regularly find people repeating all kinds of things that were true in the past even though things have changed. And fair enough. There is only so much time in the day. You can't possibly keep up to date on everything.
- aw1621107 11mo ago
  The thing is that the usual comparisons I'm thinking of generally focused on how much the languages in question rely on GC for practical use. C++11 didn't really move the needle much, if at all, in that respect compared to the typical languages on the other side of said comparisons. Perhaps I happen to have been around different discussions than you?
  - 9rx 11mo ago
    > focused on how much the languages in question rely on GC for practical use. That's quite nebulous. It should be quantified. But, while we wait for that, if we assume by that metric C++ is not a GC language today, but tomorrow C++ developers all collectively decide that all heap allocations are to depend on std::shared_ptr, then it must become a GC language. But the language hasn't changed in any way. How can an attribute of the language change without any changes?
    - aw1621107 11mo ago
      > That's quite nebulous. It should be quantified. Perhaps, but I'm reluctant to speak more definitively since I don't consider myself an authority/expert in the field. > But the language hasn't changed in any way. How can an attribute of the language change without any changes? The reason I put in "for practical use" is because since pedantically speaking no language actually requires GC - you "just" need to provision enough hardware (see: HFT firms (ab)use of Java by disabling the GC and resetting programs/machines at the end of the day). That's not relevant for basically everyone, though, since practically speaking you usually want to bound resource use, and some languages rely on a GC to do that. I guess "general" or "normal" might have been a better word than "practical" in that case. I didn't intend to claim that how programmers use a language affects whether it should be considered a GC language or not.

9rx 11mo ago

C++ didn't add GC until relatively recently, to be fair. When people from 30 years ago get an idea stuck in their head they don't usually ever change their understanding even as life continues to march forward. This isn't limited to software. If you look around you'll regularly find people repeating all kinds of things that were true in the past even though things have changed. And fair enough. There is only so much time in the day. You can't possibly keep up to date on everything.

aw1621107 11mo ago
The thing is that the usual comparisons I'm thinking of generally focused on how much the languages in question rely on GC for practical use. C++11 didn't really move the needle much, if at all, in that respect compared to the typical languages on the other side of said comparisons. Perhaps I happen to have been around different discussions than you?
- 9rx 11mo ago
  > focused on how much the languages in question rely on GC for practical use. That's quite nebulous. It should be quantified. But, while we wait for that, if we assume by that metric C++ is not a GC language today, but tomorrow C++ developers all collectively decide that all heap allocations are to depend on std::shared_ptr, then it must become a GC language. But the language hasn't changed in any way. How can an attribute of the language change without any changes?
  - aw1621107 11mo ago
    > That's quite nebulous. It should be quantified. Perhaps, but I'm reluctant to speak more definitively since I don't consider myself an authority/expert in the field. > But the language hasn't changed in any way. How can an attribute of the language change without any changes? The reason I put in "for practical use" is because since pedantically speaking no language actually requires GC - you "just" need to provision enough hardware (see: HFT firms (ab)use of Java by disabling the GC and resetting programs/machines at the end of the day). That's not relevant for basically everyone, though, since practically speaking you usually want to bound resource use, and some languages rely on a GC to do that. I guess "general" or "normal" might have been a better word than "practical" in that case. I didn't intend to claim that how programmers use a language affects whether it should be considered a GC language or not.