4 ms·

I would say the complexity of implementing defer yourself is a bit annoying for C. However defer itself, as a language feature in a C standard is pretty reasona

I would say the complexity of implementing defer yourself is a bit annoying for C. However defer itself, as a language feature in a C standard is pretty reasonable. It’s a very straightforward concept and fits well within the scope of C, just as it fit within the scope of zig. As long as it’s the zig defer, not the golang one… I would not introduce zig’s errdeferr though. That one would need additional semantics changes in C to express errors.

qsera 8mo ago
>pretty reasonable It starts out small. Then before you know the language is total shit. Python is a good example. I am observing a very distinguishable phenomenon when internet makes very shallow ideas mainstream and ruin many many good things that stood the test of time. I am not saying this is one of those instances, but what the parent comment makes sense to me. You can see another comment who now wants to go further and want destructors in C. Because of internet, such voices can now reach out to each other, gather and cause a change. But before, such voices would have to go through a lot of sensible heads before they would be able to reach each other. In other words, bad ideas got snuffed early before internet, but now they go mainstream easily. So you see, it starts out slow, but then more and more stuff gets added which diverges more and more from the point.
- duckerude 8mo ago
  That comment is saying to use C++, not to add destructors to C.
- Galanwe 8mo ago
  I get your point, though in the specific case of defer, looks like we both agree it's really a good move. No more spaghetti of goto err_*; in complex initialization functions.
  - qsera 8mo ago
    >we both agree it's really a good move Actually I am not sure I do. It seems to me that even though `defer` is more explicit than destructors, it still falls under "spooky action at a distance" category.
    - Galanwe 8mo ago
      I don't understand why destructors enter the discussion. This is C, there is no destructors. Are you comparing "adding destructors to C" vs "adding defer to C"? The former would be bring so much in C that it wouldn't be C anymore. And if your point is "you should switch to C++ to get destructors", then it seems out of topic. By very definition, if we're talking about language X and your answer is "switch to Y", this is an entirely different subject, of very few interest to people programming in X.
      - qsera 8mo ago
        Sorry, I had some other thread that involved destructors in my head. But the point is `defer` is still in "spooky action at a distance" category that I generally don't want in programming languages, especially in c.
        Galanwe 8mo ago
        > `defer` is still in "spooky action at a distance" category Agree, this is also why I'm a bit weary of it. What brings me on the "pro" side is that, defer or not defer, there will need to be some kind of cleanup anyway. It's just a matter of where it is declared, and close to the acquisition is arguably better. The caveat IMHO is that if a codebase is not consistent in its use, it could be worst.
        array_key_first 8mo ago
        But the real-world alternatives that people use are: 1. goto, which is "spooky action at a distance" to the nth degree. It's not even safe, you can goto anywhere, even out of scope. 2. cleanup attributes, which are not standard.
- ubercore 8mo ago
  Modern Python is great :shrug:

qsera 8mo ago

>pretty reasonable It starts out small. Then before you know the language is total shit. Python is a good example. I am observing a very distinguishable phenomenon when internet makes very shallow ideas mainstream and ruin many many good things that stood the test of time. I am not saying this is one of those instances, but what the parent comment makes sense to me. You can see another comment who now wants to go further and want destructors in C. Because of internet, such voices can now reach out to each other, gather and cause a change. But before, such voices would have to go through a lot of sensible heads before they would be able to reach each other. In other words, bad ideas got snuffed early before internet, but now they go mainstream easily. So you see, it starts out slow, but then more and more stuff gets added which diverges more and more from the point.

duckerude 8mo ago
That comment is saying to use C++, not to add destructors to C.
Galanwe 8mo ago
I get your point, though in the specific case of defer, looks like we both agree it's really a good move. No more spaghetti of goto err_*; in complex initialization functions.
- qsera 8mo ago
  >we both agree it's really a good move Actually I am not sure I do. It seems to me that even though `defer` is more explicit than destructors, it still falls under "spooky action at a distance" category.
  - Galanwe 8mo ago
    I don't understand why destructors enter the discussion. This is C, there is no destructors. Are you comparing "adding destructors to C" vs "adding defer to C"? The former would be bring so much in C that it wouldn't be C anymore. And if your point is "you should switch to C++ to get destructors", then it seems out of topic. By very definition, if we're talking about language X and your answer is "switch to Y", this is an entirely different subject, of very few interest to people programming in X.
    - qsera 8mo ago
      Sorry, I had some other thread that involved destructors in my head. But the point is `defer` is still in "spooky action at a distance" category that I generally don't want in programming languages, especially in c.
      - Galanwe 8mo ago
        > `defer` is still in "spooky action at a distance" category Agree, this is also why I'm a bit weary of it. What brings me on the "pro" side is that, defer or not defer, there will need to be some kind of cleanup anyway. It's just a matter of where it is declared, and close to the acquisition is arguably better. The caveat IMHO is that if a codebase is not consistent in its use, it could be worst.
      - array_key_first 8mo ago
        But the real-world alternatives that people use are: 1. goto, which is "spooky action at a distance" to the nth degree. It's not even safe, you can goto anywhere, even out of scope. 2. cleanup attributes, which are not standard.
ubercore 8mo ago
Modern Python is great :shrug: