The Elena Programming Language

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 2:05 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #58

mastrsushi wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely, No one here thinks you're Steve Jobs. Just show me your little toy pet project example code to convince me it's slightly less useless than the 10 other ones that get posted here everyday.

Be kind. Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Edit: you've unfortunately been breaking the site guidelines at a high rate with your recent comments. Could please review them and take the spirit of this site more to heart? We're trying to have a community here that doesn't degenerate to in…

Post by arakov » Sat, Aug 22, 2020, 7:42 AM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #60

arakov wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't imagine a modern language without GC. So yes, it has. Destructors are not yet implemented,though I do plan them.

I can. Do you consider Rust not modern? Destructors are usually hard to support cleanly in the presence of obligate GC. Given destructors, GC turns out to be unnecessary. Lacking destructors, managing non-memory resources becomes foolishly difficult, particularly across library boundaries.

Post by arakov » Sun, Aug 23, 2020, 1:23 PM UTC

ncmncm wrote: post #64

arakov wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as much as I can see, Rust is a special case. So I mean most of the modern languages. After all I consider C++ modern as well :)

OK then! I will be interested to see how destructors are reconciled with GC. Where I have seen GC used in C++ runtimes, it is confined to specific, graph-like structures, where tracking cycles would be messy; or provided to obligate-GC languages being interpreted. In both cases it is always clear whether an object's lifetime is tracked, and the C++ runtime does not see the objects.