Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Understanding the Odin programming language

odinbook.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 163 posts

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#111

Post by AnimalMuppet »

Someone wrote: post #99
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, GC has indeterminate timing in and of itself . Reference counting does not. It can still trigger indeterminate timing if the destructor calls free, or if the "thing" going out of scope is a pointer, but that's on the destructor or the pointer, not on reference counting per se.

> but that's on the destructor or the pointer, not on reference counting per se. It is on reference counting per se. If the reference count of a reference goes to zero, the runtime has to make the memory available for reuse. That’s what I called ‘calling free’. Also, about “GC has indeterminate timing in and of itself”. Again: define what you mean by it. Yes, The timing of allocating an object can vary depending on t…

I think I understand you now. You don't do reference counting for something "on the stack" (in C++ terms), you only do it for something on the heap. Things on the stack can have destructors, but that gets called when the stack frame goes out of scope. So anything reference counted, when the count goes to zero, will not only have its destructor run, but will also be deallocated on the heap (calling free).

And then whether you blame that on reference counting or garbage collection or heap allocation is kind of an arbitrary distinction.

OK, I get it. You were right :-)

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#112

Post by CyberDildonics »

jstimpfle wrote: post #103
CyberDildonics wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Confusing achievements in one area for evidence in another is literally an appeal to authority fallacy.

You must mean confusing achievements in the area of creating large maintainable and performant systems on the one hand, with achievements in the area of creating large maintainable and performant systems on the other hand? And let me incude Ryan Fleury here who graduated from Casey-school with honors, he is maybe the most impressive programmer I know. His work on the raddebugger is outstanding.

You're still not anywhere close to the thread's topic. Hero worship isn't evidence.

C++’ish approach to memory management (RAII) - that’s not how systems programming or games (I’m told) tend to work

This is the statement that no one seems to be able to back up. Instead it's fans of some internet programmers saying that they must be right about everything because they shipped a game.

I actually like hearing what they have to say, but they aren't right about this and there is no evidence or explanation here from you, them or anyone else.

Instead you start talking about a third person making a debugger for some reason as if the solution to appealing to authority is more appealing to authority.

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#113

Post by jstimpfle »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #112
jstimpfle wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must mean confusing achievements in the area of creating large maintainable and performant systems on the one hand, with achievements in the area of creating large maintainable and performant systems on the other hand? And let me incude Ryan Fleury here who graduated from Casey-school with honors, he is maybe the most impressive programmer I know. His work on the raddebugger is outstanding.

You're still not anywhere close to the thread's topic. Hero worship isn't evidence. C++’ish approach to memory management (RAII) - that’s not how systems programming or games (I’m told) tend to work This is the statement that no one seems to be able to back up. Instead it's fans of some internet programmers saying that they must be right about everything because they shipped a game. I actually like hearing what they…

> This is the statement that no one seems to be able to back up.

Actually there are many explanations of systemic issues arising from reliance on RAII. Both Jon and Casey are very good explaining the matters.

> Instead you start talking about a third person making a debugger for some reason as if the solution to appealing to authority is more appealing to authority.

A third person (already mentioned in a parent comment), who is creating an extremely snappy and powerful debugger using those exact approaches under discussion.

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#114

Post by AlexeyBrin »

phplovesong wrote: post #102

Promoting here on HN is not usually allowed. This is a paid tutorial for some obscure programming language.

I have no connection with the book author. Also, people post all the time links to paid sources on HN (like books, software or pay for services).

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#115

Post by CyberDildonics »

jstimpfle wrote: post #113
CyberDildonics wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're still not anywhere close to the thread's topic. Hero worship isn't evidence. C++’ish approach to memory management (RAII) - that’s not how systems programming or games (I’m told) tend to work This is the statement that no one seems to be able to back up. Instead it's fans of some internet programmers saying that they must be right about everything because they shipped a game. I actually like hearing what they…

> This is the statement that no one seems to be able to back up. Actually there are many explanations of systemic issues arising from reliance on RAII. Both Jon and Casey are very good explaining the matters. > Instead you start talking about a third person making a debugger for some reason as if the solution to appealing to authority is more appealing to authority. A third person (already mentioned in a parent comme…

Actually there are many explanations

So lets hear them.

A third person (already mentioned in a parent comment), who is creating an extremely snappy and powerful debugger

Who cares? They have nothing to do with anything, why are you avoiding a technical discussion of facts to talk about your favorite influencers?

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#116

Post by jstimpfle »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #115
jstimpfle wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is the statement that no one seems to be able to back up. Actually there are many explanations of systemic issues arising from reliance on RAII. Both Jon and Casey are very good explaining the matters. > Instead you start talking about a third person making a debugger for some reason as if the solution to appealing to authority is more appealing to authority. A third person (already mentioned in a parent comme…

Actually there are many explanations So lets hear them. A third person (already mentioned in a parent comment), who is creating an extremely snappy and powerful debugger Who cares? They have nothing to do with anything, why are you avoiding a technical discussion of facts to talk about your favorite influencers?

> So lets hear them.

There are few people delivering more in-depth explanations of their claims, like literally thousands of hours of content. You can just look it up. If you disagree, please disagree. Personally I find what they say articulates almost 100% of my independent experience. And I do systems programming in C++ full-time (file systems / desktop app infrastructure). Personally I've made at least 9 serious attempts of building robust and maintainable systems on top of C++ features like RAII and templates and have always returned to simple straightforward C-style code. And I've had to work many times with existing C++ codebases that had bought into these features, and it always seemed like a giant waste of time, a way to add more spaghettis to a hot mess. And also, any technically convincing C++ codebase I've seen always seemed to make only very light use of C++ features. Not going to argue more here.

> Who cares? They have nothing to do with anything

Quite the opposite, it's a third person from the same circle making the same kind of claims (there are more persons), who have, contrary to what you say, actual evidence to back up their claims. You could just go ahead and check these works out yourself and see if it convinces you that the methods they claim to be better are actually better.

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#117

Post by CyberDildonics »

jstimpfle wrote: post #116
CyberDildonics wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually there are many explanations So lets hear them. A third person (already mentioned in a parent comment), who is creating an extremely snappy and powerful debugger Who cares? They have nothing to do with anything, why are you avoiding a technical discussion of facts to talk about your favorite influencers?

> So lets hear them. There are few people delivering more in-depth explanations of their claims, like literally thousands of hours of content. You can just look it up . If you disagree, please disagree. Personally I find what they say articulates almost 100% of my independent experience. And I do systems programming in C++ full-time (file systems / desktop app infrastructure). Personally I've made at least 9 serious…

These are classic zero evidence replies. Go and "do your own research", "look it up yourself", and then nothing but repeating your claims and not even realizing that isn't evidence.

Here it's actually worse, I don't even know what the specific claims you're talking about are.

If this was so simple and you know it so well just spell it out.

You can just look it up.

Or you can just look up what literally everyone else does and relies on in systems programming.

I've seen always seemed to make only very light use of C++ features.

So what? You not using something has nothing to do with an actual explanation of its shortcomings, you realize that right?

there are more persons

Then where is the actual evidence and explanation? Why is it so difficult even after multiple replies to have a shred of evidence or technical explanation?

It's you and the three guys you are fans of against the entire world of systems programming, because scope based resource management and ownership is what people need the vast majority of the time because most resource lifetimes are determined by scope.

If you're going to reply again, try to have some explanation of what your claim is and why it makes sense on a technical level instead of just trying to tell someone to go and prove your ambiguous claim for you.

Also saying that you ignoring something is somehow an explanation for why it doesn't work, is like someone claiming helicopters don't work because they don't use them to get around.

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#118

Post by jstimpfle »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #117
jstimpfle wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So lets hear them. There are few people delivering more in-depth explanations of their claims, like literally thousands of hours of content. You can just look it up . If you disagree, please disagree. Personally I find what they say articulates almost 100% of my independent experience. And I do systems programming in C++ full-time (file systems / desktop app infrastructure). Personally I've made at least 9 serious…

These are classic zero evidence replies. Go and "do your own research", "look it up yourself", and then nothing but repeating your claims and not even realizing that isn't evidence. Here it's actually worse, I don't even know what the specific claims you're talking about are. If this was so simple and you know it so well just spell it out. You can just look it up. Or you can just look up what literally everyone else…

I told you what to check out. I'm not regurgitating this, I've done it often enough.

Have you spent 1 minute cloning the raddebugger, 3 seconds to build it, and 0.5 seconds to launch it, to be convinced that it is a solid product?

> It's you and the three guys you are fans of against the entire world of systems programming

What is this "entire world of systems programming"? From what I've seen, there are very few accomplished experts who would disagree a lot with what e.g. Jon/Casey/Ryan have to say.

What are you working on?

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#119

Post by dismalaf »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #87
dismalaf wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to using C, Rust, or something else (Jon eventually made Jai but Casey still uses C++). Obviously they don't outright hate it.

They talk about hating it all the time and using some minimal subset because they have to, but the point here is not what these two internet personalities hate, it's that there isn't a technical rationale against being able to use destructors. They are hugely convenient but also completely easy to avoid if someone wants to.

Everyone uses a subset. Bjarne himself says he uses a subset.

Re: Understanding the Odin programming language

#120

Post by CyberDildonics »

jstimpfle wrote: post #118
CyberDildonics wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are classic zero evidence replies. Go and "do your own research", "look it up yourself", and then nothing but repeating your claims and not even realizing that isn't evidence. Here it's actually worse, I don't even know what the specific claims you're talking about are. If this was so simple and you know it so well just spell it out. You can just look it up. Or you can just look up what literally everyone else…

I told you what to check out. I'm not regurgitating this, I've done it often enough. Have you spent 1 minute cloning the raddebugger, 3 seconds to build it, and 0.5 seconds to launch it, to be convinced that it is a solid product? > It's you and the three guys you are fans of against the entire world of systems programming What is this "entire world of systems programming"? From what I've seen, there are very few acc…

I told you what to check out.

No you didn't, you have no information and don't even have links. What kind of twilight zone fever dream is this where you say nothing at all and pretend you already gave some sort of evidence. This is the no evidence playbook in a nutshell. Come up with unrelated nonsense, try to divert away from the question, tell the other person to go make your argument for you, say you already gave the evidence...

You had five comments and didn't even get started with confronting the actual question.

Have you spent 1 minute cloning the raddebugger, 3 seconds to build it, and 0.5 seconds to launch it, to be convinced that it is a solid product?

In what world does this have anything to do with anything being talked about? You need to focus.

From what I've seen, there are very few accomplished experts who would disagree a lot with what e.g. Jon/Casey/Ryan have to say.

From what I've seen it's every accomplished expert except for them, but that again is an appeal to authority logical fallacy which you seem to be in love with.

Why don't you say what it is they actually have to say about destructors? If this is so simple and your heroes already laid it all out for you, why can't you do it? Why can't you give even the simplest explanation when people have supposedly already explained it for you?

Post reply on HN