6 ms·

It's NOT unrelated. It is a real world demonstration of the simplicity possible by custom modeling of allocation and lifetime concerns instead of buying into a

It's NOT unrelated. It is a real world demonstration of the simplicity possible by custom modeling of allocation and lifetime concerns instead of buying into a fixed scheme set by a language. No, it's claiming that because someone can do something that there must not be a better way to do it. Games were written in assembly, that doesn't mean that's the best way to do it. I've been arguing all day You've been avoiding it all day then finally making claims after six replies. vector<T> or whatever, you will have a bad time if you don't model T's destruction with a C++ destructor too So? What do you think that looks like in C? For loops and nested for loops, which all need to be hand written or copy and pasted and to happen at the right time. If you start dealing with early returns or gotos you need to have all those nested for loops copy and pasted multiple times. I explained why: internals have to get moved to public API in practice. This makes no sense, you would just move something into a function if it needs to take ownership. In C you have nothing to indicate ownership and every function in every API needs to have auxiliary documentation to say whether it is going to own the memory you give it or not. Why are you being so stubborn? I keep asking for the same thing and you keep running away from it. Destructors (like other methods) practically require classes to be fully exposed This doesn't make any sense, it automates something you have to do any way. ON GODBOLT? Are you kidding me? Is there something wrong with an actual program that shows actual evidence? This seems like a basic demonstration is earth shattering to you. I CAN NOT explain to you what sucks about it in a godbolt. If you can't demonstrate it with actual source code then you just have claims and no evidence.

jstimpfle 3mo ago
> If you can't demonstrate it with actual source code then you just have claims and no evidence. I can NOT demonstrate it in a tiny godbolt because the effects I am talking about don't apply on a micro-scale. I CAN demonstrate it with actual source code, but you are unwilling to look it up. You are disagreeing without making the tiniest effort. Not being willing to make an effort by itself is fine. But you're being contrarian in the worst and laziest way. Do you not understand the concept that I can't explain the world to you from the ground up? You say no to everything without trying to understand it. Your "rebuttals" indicate you're not willing to follow me in the slightest and you reject even the most common lore (for example the thing about C++ class features (destructors, methods...) leading to exposure of internals in public headers, leading to every TU including the world). Or you are intentionally trolling me. You are being uncooperative and you're the single worst interaction I've had on this platform. Now please get off my lawn.
- CyberDildonics 3mo ago
  To recap, there are all sort of detrimental effects to just freeing memory when a variable goes out of scope, but they can't be explained or demonstrated in any way. I could tell it was all going to go this way from the second comment, I'm always fascinated by people with rock solid beliefs that can't explain them in any way. I can NOT demonstrate it in a tiny godbolt because the effects I am talking about don't apply on a micro-scale. They do because it's just automatic resources within a scope. I CAN demonstrate it with actual source code, but you are unwilling to look it up. Why don't you link something besides a name of a big C project and explain it. The idea that someone making a project in C somehow means other features and tools are terrible isn't even logic. That would mean that one project in a language from the 70s would negate every garbage collected and dynamically typed scripting language. It makes no sense in any way. It's like saying because someone road a bike 20 miles cars are terrible. Do you not understand the concept that I can't explain the world to you from the ground up? You don't seem to be able to explain anything at all. You say no to everything without trying to understand it. You don't give any explanations, they are just claims, do you understand that? Do you know what evidence is? It's the thing you say you can't provide. You think that somehow something simple like automatically running a function you have to run anyway is a problem, it's nonsense. By your own logic the fact that https://github.com/chromium/chromium https://github.com/chromium/chromium has 1.7 million commits to your project's 4,385 means that modern C++ is more than 380 times as effective. for example the thing about C++ class features (destructors, methods...) leading to exposure of internals in public headers That's a matter of dependencies and doesn't have anything to do with destructors. you're the single worst interaction I've had on this platform. Now we're to the "I don't like how you're saying it" part of the no evidence playbook. This happens when someone can't admit that they don't have any information and they can't believe that people won't accept them repeating claims as evidence. Your own project has plenty of the bugs that destructors and contained memory allocation avoid. Raw heap allocations, raw mem copies etc. https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/855 https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/855 Here's a complex memory cleanup race condition that's 'solved' with a sleep function. https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/735 https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/735 even the most common lore I think it's time to admit to yourself that you have accepted some internet youtuber personalities as a religious belief and that you haven't questioned these beliefs with thoughts that go beyond the claims of the cult.

jstimpfle 3mo ago

> If you can't demonstrate it with actual source code then you just have claims and no evidence. I can NOT demonstrate it in a tiny godbolt because the effects I am talking about don't apply on a micro-scale. I CAN demonstrate it with actual source code, but you are unwilling to look it up. You are disagreeing without making the tiniest effort. Not being willing to make an effort by itself is fine. But you're being contrarian in the worst and laziest way. Do you not understand the concept that I can't explain the world to you from the ground up? You say no to everything without trying to understand it. Your "rebuttals" indicate you're not willing to follow me in the slightest and you reject even the most common lore (for example the thing about C++ class features (destructors, methods...) leading to exposure of internals in public headers, leading to every TU including the world). Or you are intentionally trolling me. You are being uncooperative and you're the single worst interaction I've had on this platform. Now please get off my lawn.

CyberDildonics 3mo ago
To recap, there are all sort of detrimental effects to just freeing memory when a variable goes out of scope, but they can't be explained or demonstrated in any way. I could tell it was all going to go this way from the second comment, I'm always fascinated by people with rock solid beliefs that can't explain them in any way. I can NOT demonstrate it in a tiny godbolt because the effects I am talking about don't apply on a micro-scale. They do because it's just automatic resources within a scope. I CAN demonstrate it with actual source code, but you are unwilling to look it up. Why don't you link something besides a name of a big C project and explain it. The idea that someone making a project in C somehow means other features and tools are terrible isn't even logic. That would mean that one project in a language from the 70s would negate every garbage collected and dynamically typed scripting language. It makes no sense in any way. It's like saying because someone road a bike 20 miles cars are terrible. Do you not understand the concept that I can't explain the world to you from the ground up? You don't seem to be able to explain anything at all. You say no to everything without trying to understand it. You don't give any explanations, they are just claims, do you understand that? Do you know what evidence is? It's the thing you say you can't provide. You think that somehow something simple like automatically running a function you have to run anyway is a problem, it's nonsense. By your own logic the fact that https://github.com/chromium/chromium https://github.com/chromium/chromium has 1.7 million commits to your project's 4,385 means that modern C++ is more than 380 times as effective. for example the thing about C++ class features (destructors, methods...) leading to exposure of internals in public headers That's a matter of dependencies and doesn't have anything to do with destructors. you're the single worst interaction I've had on this platform. Now we're to the "I don't like how you're saying it" part of the no evidence playbook. This happens when someone can't admit that they don't have any information and they can't believe that people won't accept them repeating claims as evidence. Your own project has plenty of the bugs that destructors and contained memory allocation avoid. Raw heap allocations, raw mem copies etc. https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/855 https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/855 Here's a complex memory cleanup race condition that's 'solved' with a sleep function. https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/735 https://github.com/EpicGames/raddebugger/issues/735 even the most common lore I think it's time to admit to yourself that you have accepted some internet youtuber personalities as a religious belief and that you haven't questioned these beliefs with thoughts that go beyond the claims of the cult.