Claude Code uses Bun written in Rust now

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 didn't give arguments.

> People use them because by default values have scope based lifetimes and destructors unify the handling of stack based values which require no explicit cleanup with data structures that heap allocate,

Once again you're explaining beginner C++ do me. Are you still doubting if I understand this argument? My response to this was and is, if you have primarily stack scoped lifetimes, you are writing beginner programs. This is scripting and plumbing. It's not interesting to me. Systems programming is not so much about stack scoped lifetimes.

RAII systematicing object lifetimes and cleanup, thus enabling exceptions and implicit or uncontrolled control flow, may sound nice on paper, but turns out we shouldn't want them in the first place. What RAII leaves for me is a system that will automatically call nested object's destructors when I delete something. It's not something I want in general, I think it has more downsides than upsides for the code I'm writing. I've actually tried to use RAII many times and I've concluded it doesn't work for me.

> This is exaggerated when there are multiple returns, gotos, macros and other sources of branching especially for error handling.

If I were you, my response would be: The burden of proof is on you, show the evidence. But my answer is, yes that is right, but everything is a tradeoff, and the issues caused by manual cleanup are also somewhat exaggerated by C++ people, and the issues caused by blindly buying into the corset of C++ types are not well understood by C++ zealots (I've done my best at explaining them).

Issues caused by C approach are also a matter of design and approach to programming in general. It also depends on the actual problem you're solving. The linux kernel for example doesn't exactly have the easiest or most beautiful code to follow, but surely it's one of the most technical codebases out there, one that solves difficult problems (performant resource multiplexing for programs that it doesn't even know). On the other hand, the debugger code base I've referenced doesn't have any gotos for example, nor even early returns (or almost none, not sure).

Find me a single example of programs that run as fast and are as productively maintained as these two codebases in their respective areas? I believe there aren't any.

This should be plenty evidence to a reasonable mind, but that isn't you.

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 hallucinating. I've repeatedly and explicitly told you to shut up explaining beginner things. You are trying to refute my criticisms of RAII with your silly explanations of how RAII works. That's not how an argument or "evidence" works.

> Exceptions aren't uncontrolled flow and you can also not use them.

I would rather call it _implicit_ flow but they also lead to losing control over control flow because of that. Yes, I can just not use exceptions, and also avoid gotos and use them in a principle way, and do cleanup in a principled way. And then I can also do without RAII and without all the baggage I'd have to buy into in order to use it.

> You don't have an explanation of why the burden of proof is on me.

Please p* off man. You're being ridiculous.

> It means memory leaks and crashes which everyone has been fighting for 50 years.

Like you have been on your Linux, Windows, or Mac machine? Maybe you are running a linux machine with an uptime of weeks, months, or even years?

> Someone running a marathon without shoes doesn't mean shoes are bad.

You claiming to run a marathon with a 25kg backpack doesn't mean you don't lie, and it also doesn't prove running without it isn't the better approach.

> Why can't you give a single basic explanation instead of making the same claim over and over?

The only person not giving explanation beyond basic boring introductory C++ RAII school, that's YOU my friend. I've been giving a lot of explanations what I think is problematic, somehow it seems you're mentally unable to acknowledge them.

https://x.com/TheChiefNerd/status/2081204789371621744

Why don't you do it so you can make your own argument.

Why does it seem like the majority of core infrastructure,

Why are projects started decades not using modern C++ that came decades after they were started?

This doesn't have anything to do with destructors.

The arguments that I've given (but you keep insisting I didn't give them)

You didn't give arguments, you made claims based on other people doing something different decades before modern C++ existed. Someone managing to dig a hole with their hands doesn't make a shovel a bad tool. Animals dig holes all the time, people are better at it.

But if you try to actually implement technically interesting things, it won't help you at all, it's just getting in the way.

This again is your claim which you haven't been able to explain in any way.