3 ms·

By that definition even C has garbage collection. Automatic storage duration types have compiler-determined lifetime and automatic deallocation. If the defin

By that definition even C has garbage collection. Automatic storage duration types have compiler-determined lifetime and automatic deallocation. If the definition of a word/concept does not match how the word is used in real life, the definition is wrong. After all, semantics is about common understanding of concepts. If your definition of a word doesn't match how it's used, using that definition is not beneficial to use.

gf000 3mo ago
Well yeah, stack variables are automatically reclaimed. What's your issue? It's just that this is not the predominant way C programs are written and for everything else you do need to somehow manage the memory, malloced objects would otherwise just leak. What exactly is the issue, the real life use of C requires manually adding free calls, is it not? So it doesn't do automatic memory management for you.
- deliciousturkey 3mo ago
  The term "garbage collection" does not mean that the language has some mechanism of automatically reclaiming some memory. If it did, C would be a garbage-collected language. The term is not used in such way. Now, of course reference counting can be used as a part of a garbage collector. But that doesn't mean any language that allows you to implement reference counting as a library, is a garbage-collected language.
  - gf000 3mo ago
    Yeah, and? We are in agreement here, C++ is not a GCd language. What I (we) claim is that reference counting is a GC, that's it. A language that uses RC 100% would be a GCd language, like python (okay, it does have a tracing GC to collect cycles as well). C++/rust has the necessary language primitives to express reference counting as a library, but that's an optional thing, usually applied only to select few objects. That's a bit like Java can also just allocate a byte buffer and do manual memory management, neither makes a language GCd/manual in and of itself.
  - pron 3mo ago
    > But that doesn't mean any language that allows you to implement reference counting as a library, is a garbage-collected language. The concept of "a garbage-collected language" is not well-defined. There are languages, like Java, Rust, and Python that depend on a garbage collection mechanism, and languages like C, C++ and Zig, which don't. C++ happens to offer a GC in its standard library, however. That "working developers" use some other terminology is not what matters. What matters is whether the terminology they're using expresses important distinctions or not (and may, in fact, express misconceptions about distinctions). In the case of memory management (as in the case of "transpiles", although there the damage isn't as high), the colloquial terminology is misleading as it is used to hint at distinctions (such as about performance) which are simply not there. E.g. moving GCs are used to avoid the performance overheads of malloc/free, especially in large and/or concurrent programs. This performance overhead that C and C++ suffer from is well known to experienced low-level developers (which is partly why large programs that benefit from moving collectors are relatively rarely written in such languages anymore), but now the terminology is used as a cargo cult, which leads to conclusions that are sometimes the very opposite of what's really going on.
    - senderista 3mo ago
      I think it would be a salutary experience for every C/C++ programmer to write a decently-performing allocator so they could appreciate the complexity and overhead required to avoid excessive fragmentation (especially in long-running programs with long-lived allocations and irregular deallocations), given the constraint of address stability.
    - whytevuhuni 3mo ago
      > The concept of "a garbage-collected language" is not well-defined. There are languages, like Java, Rust, and Python that depend on a garbage collection mechanism, and languages like C, C++ and Zig, which don't. C++ happens to offer a GC in its standard library, however. How does Rust differ from C++ in this regard? As far as I know, both use RAII, and offer something RC-like in their stdlib that is optional to use.
      - pron 3mo ago
- smj-edison 3mo ago
  Gilad Bracha wrote a fascinating piece on how tail call optimization could be implemented with periodic collection instead of immediately reusing the call frame, it's a fascinating piece: https://gbracha.blogspot.com/2009/12/chased-by-ones-own-tail.html https://gbracha.blogspot.com/2009/12/chased-by-ones-own-tail...

gf000 3mo ago

Well yeah, stack variables are automatically reclaimed. What's your issue? It's just that this is not the predominant way C programs are written and for everything else you do need to somehow manage the memory, malloced objects would otherwise just leak. What exactly is the issue, the real life use of C requires manually adding free calls, is it not? So it doesn't do automatic memory management for you.

deliciousturkey 3mo ago
The term "garbage collection" does not mean that the language has some mechanism of automatically reclaiming some memory. If it did, C would be a garbage-collected language. The term is not used in such way. Now, of course reference counting can be used as a part of a garbage collector. But that doesn't mean any language that allows you to implement reference counting as a library, is a garbage-collected language.
- gf000 3mo ago
  Yeah, and? We are in agreement here, C++ is not a GCd language. What I (we) claim is that reference counting is a GC, that's it. A language that uses RC 100% would be a GCd language, like python (okay, it does have a tracing GC to collect cycles as well). C++/rust has the necessary language primitives to express reference counting as a library, but that's an optional thing, usually applied only to select few objects. That's a bit like Java can also just allocate a byte buffer and do manual memory management, neither makes a language GCd/manual in and of itself.
- pron 3mo ago
  > But that doesn't mean any language that allows you to implement reference counting as a library, is a garbage-collected language. The concept of "a garbage-collected language" is not well-defined. There are languages, like Java, Rust, and Python that depend on a garbage collection mechanism, and languages like C, C++ and Zig, which don't. C++ happens to offer a GC in its standard library, however. That "working developers" use some other terminology is not what matters. What matters is whether the terminology they're using expresses important distinctions or not (and may, in fact, express misconceptions about distinctions). In the case of memory management (as in the case of "transpiles", although there the damage isn't as high), the colloquial terminology is misleading as it is used to hint at distinctions (such as about performance) which are simply not there. E.g. moving GCs are used to avoid the performance overheads of malloc/free, especially in large and/or concurrent programs. This performance overhead that C and C++ suffer from is well known to experienced low-level developers (which is partly why large programs that benefit from moving collectors are relatively rarely written in such languages anymore), but now the terminology is used as a cargo cult, which leads to conclusions that are sometimes the very opposite of what's really going on.
  - senderista 3mo ago
    I think it would be a salutary experience for every C/C++ programmer to write a decently-performing allocator so they could appreciate the complexity and overhead required to avoid excessive fragmentation (especially in long-running programs with long-lived allocations and irregular deallocations), given the constraint of address stability.
  - whytevuhuni 3mo ago
    > The concept of "a garbage-collected language" is not well-defined. There are languages, like Java, Rust, and Python that depend on a garbage collection mechanism, and languages like C, C++ and Zig, which don't. C++ happens to offer a GC in its standard library, however. How does Rust differ from C++ in this regard? As far as I know, both use RAII, and offer something RC-like in their stdlib that is optional to use.
    - pron 3mo ago
smj-edison 3mo ago
Gilad Bracha wrote a fascinating piece on how tail call optimization could be implemented with periodic collection instead of immediately reusing the call frame, it's a fascinating piece: https://gbracha.blogspot.com/2009/12/chased-by-ones-own-tail.html https://gbracha.blogspot.com/2009/12/chased-by-ones-own-tail...