jstimpfle

8 ms·

31.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Are you saying there is cache thrashing because callers often sercice rheid own requests themselves? If you don't want to service requests in the same thread, doesnt it mean you have to spend entire core(s) for running the kernel?
32.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
> I at least showed you cppreference so you can look up the data structures and their guarantees. Why do you show this to me??? Don't you think I know it? > But you did blame the STL for concurrency bugs so there must have been s
33.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Actually, not half a dozen, more like hundreds if you count all the tiny ad-hoc stuff too (many of them similar or the same).
34.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
At this point, what isn't much of an estimation anymore is that you are here to explain things that nobody's asked for, and like to assume people around you have been waiting for your pearls of wisdom. You're unable to realiz
35.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
> I gave you great information "Great" is quite debatable. In any case, nothing I hadn't already known. > You aren't going to notice all your concurrency bugs without threads. True, but my problem was neither prope
36.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Serious question, are you an AI programmed to be annoying? > This isn't a problem with the standard library because a std::dequeue or any other core data structure doesn't make any promises about concurrency. Dude, I KNOW I nee
37.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
You have repeatedly proven, and continue to do so, also by way of your exchanges with other commenters, that you're not asking out of curiosity. After all the previous comments we've exchanged, your line of asking was, "Which
38.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Try harder, Sherlock. You're very close to proving that I assumed the STL was "thread safe". You've almost got me.
39.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Why don't you read again what I said instead of continuing to make implications?
40.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Where did I imply that I am expecting any part of the STL to be thread safe?
41.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
You are insufferable. Get lost.
42.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Javascript
43.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
I've found that RAII and the stuff you have to buy into in order to use RAII come with more downsides than upsides once you scale beyond high level programs that try to get done a lot with very few lines. > how plain C helps with th
44.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
I understand C++ as well, or better, than most (or all) of my peers, and certainly betters than people on here thinking they need to explain to me how RAII works. Do you want to argue that C++ RAII / objects stuff isn't complex an
45.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
You don't understand even the first things of what I say. That's because you apply beginner level concepts and understand to argue, and are not looking for nuance or deeper understanding at all.
46.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
You don't get it. That's because you still don't understand some basic things about the language. There is no method call here on a pointer expression. There is only a call on a value expression.
47.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Well, the best way to prevent mistakes is to make everything super complicated and damn hard to do. The best way to prevent mistakes is to approach it to do the essential stuff and avoid the fluffy stuff.
48.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
How about you do the following two Google (or AI) searches "Please give me examples of great systems software written in plain C or C style procedural C++" "Please give me examples of great systems software written in modern
49.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
> I don't think you did, I think you just said it has downsides over and over. Show evidence of your claim. > Don't ask for basic knowledge then get upset when you get it. Where did I ask for basic knowledge? You are halluci
50.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Pretty much all the C++ features I've used are good enough to write some toy code snippet, but it's hard to use them to good effect at scale without causing massive problems. Even classes are an instance of this, they were to solv
51.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
Well that's a lie. I've long been back to raw pointers and it's by far the easiest way to do it. All of Pimpl, unique_ptr, and whatever other clever mechanism (I'm not even looking at std::indirect anymore) just aren&#x2
52.
by jstimpfle 2mo ago
> It's your claim that destructors are harmful so the burden of proof is on you. I have given a variety of arguments why I think the C++ RAII specifically has downsides. You can accept them or ignore them, but don't act like I
53.
by jstimpfle 3mo ago
You keep "asking" for evidence but the only evidence presented by yourself is that you have merely surface-level understanding of the subject matter, and are looking for arguments, not insight and critical examination.
54.
by jstimpfle 3mo ago
I asked you what's wrong with pool destructor function pointers. You gave a reason what's wrong and I refuted it. So no, I'm not saying that storing a function pointer is special, just that nothing's wrong with it. (And
55.
by jstimpfle 3mo ago
Adding that with a principled approach, I don't even see much of an issue with doing manual creates and deletes in a object-graph type app, with many unstructured lifetimes. Sometimes that might just be required, and then the complexit
56.
by jstimpfle 3mo ago
Fair enough, this is an extension though and I suppose you could use it with manually constructed vtables as well?
57.
by jstimpfle 3mo ago
Of course they are. The pointers to the vtable are part of the object. They aren't mutable fields as per the language, but for security concerns it doesn't matter what the language thinks. Being part of the object, the vtable poin
58.
by jstimpfle 3mo ago
1. No, you're not writing code you don't have to. It's not different to implementing this as non-virtual methods, in fact I'd argue doing simple functions is more straightforward. 2. And the code being compiled is abstra
59.
by jstimpfle 3mo ago
To be fair, Odin _had_ a Wikipedia page and it has been removed because of... people with whatever interests. But I'm still agreeing with your general point. I use C/C++ because it seems to be the least friction option to me overa
60.
by jstimpfle 3mo ago
I've argued elsewhere some things that are wrong with RAII and C++ objects in general. Here I would just like to mention that if you have to rely on "de-virtualization" passes, you're in a miserable situation architectur

More ›