CyberDildonics

How do you know it's cool if it didn't work?

Why take this to a place of insults and divisive antagonizing?

People have gone down this road of selling niche tools many times in the past in film making. There are a lot of pitfalls.

For starters not many people need story boarding.

When someone is actually doing a project that is big enough to need story boarding, they are going to have some infrastructure and making a wrapper around prompting image generation is not going to be far fetched.

The narrow window of productions that are doing story boarding but think they need a tool to wrap image generation and have no one to script some tools themselves is pretty small.

Because we're maybe 10-20 iterations away (250 years, tops?) from brain uploads and everlasting life harvesting the energy of distant stars. Or at least our descendants are.

You can predict 250 years in the future now and when 'brain uploads' will happen and when everlasting life will happen and when the harvesting of distant stars will happen?

That's impressive because you've made predictions a year into the future and they never came true.

It's not even some difficult technical task like people think. The back of a TV is kind of like a PC but much simpler.

There is the power board (AC to DC conversion for electronics and leds), video input board (where you plug in HDMI etc) and a t-con board, which takes a single video signal in from the input board and drives the LCD screen.

Then there are a few ancillary components like speakers, maybe a roku module etc. There are easy to find and everything is modular. You can take the speakers out and use them somewhere else if you want. You can just disconnect the wifi antennae on the smart tv board and be done with it. You can also find the IR led connection that the remote sends signals to.

You can intercept normal DNS with iptables rules.

The best way to deal with a TV you don't trust is what no one wants to hear.

Open up the back and disconnect the wifi antenna. It is easy to open them up and everything is pretty simple and obvious once you do.

amdahl's law is trivial tautological nonsense and has nothing to do with the mythical man month.

The mythical man month is about communication between people and the amount of work to be productive in a project. It's about people colliding with programming.

It has nothing to do with a vague statement that "eventually" you have diminishing returns on processors (of course there is some limit even though different tasks could be many orders of magnitude apart).

Everything already exists

Then why are you trying to make something?

I've argued elsewhere some things that are wrong with RAII and C++ objects in general.

You claimed there were problems many times for sure, I don't think you came up with any evidence of those problems.

in the future we'll all have our digital assistants that are going to be smarter than ourselves

We already have that from a lot of standpoints. Math, routing and the ability to look up all of human knowledge.

We don't think our phones are slaves because they don't have emotions or a nervous system.

No one don't think plants are slaves for the same reason.

This is not a deep or philosophical problem.

Who says high dose C02 means prolonged oxygen depletion?

If you blindly embed everything by value religiously, you deserve neither flexibility nor correctness nor performance.

I don't know what 'deserve' is supposed to mean, but I just showed how to get all three.

don't forget to group data by access patterns and write patterns

Values on the stack are going to be grouped together and they are going to be in cache.

You realize using two heap allocations means twice the frees, twice the heap contention from multiple threads and chasing through two pointers for every data structure access right? In what universe does this work better than a single pointer lookup?

Making many micro optimizations can backfire

This is an even more handwavey than usual.

All I'm saying is that destructors, while they may seem convenient, are way overrated and the systemic issues caused by reliance on C++ classes and class features (including destructors) are still not well enough understood by the mainstream in 2026.

You can say that but you have given zero evidence of any of this. It took you a very long time to even get to your claim, maybe now you can start to back it up.

Meanwhile I gave extensive evidence based on your own examples of how the same bugs have happened over the last 50 years and double indirection and vague ownership cause problems on small and large levels.

That's not so much the point:

It is the point since you compared two things that have different uses, then said you can't call an operator on a pointer, which is wrong.

are you STILL under the impression you need to explain beginner level C++ to me?

Yes

you can btw remove the move() from the return statement in this example.

First you say you have a problem with not knowing if something will copy or move, now you have a problem with an explicit move to rely on copy elision.

Seems like you just want to complain about problems that don't exist.

This is why I think it's necessary to explain the basics.

function of their knowledge and experience

Now we are to the "get good" part of the C true believe argument. People have been trying to get good for 50 years and all the same bugs still happen.

You will learn a lot and you might change your mind about many of your mainstream positions.

I've already been on both sides of this argument. I like data structures, value semantics and avoiding double indirection.

Check out the raddebugger code

Check out the code to every other piece of software you use.

I'm hoping to find a reason to use it soon.

Do you have a program that doesn't need to run fast?

The US doesn't even track diseases or fund vaccines, they aren't going fund a string of fanfiction buzzwords.

Most of those folks would never manage to replicate something like Xerox Cedar on their own, from 1980 in their beloved 2026 computers.

What are you talking about

Show the evidence. It does not. It introduces vast amounts of complexity.

The evidence is that everyone could do what you showed and they don't, they do this instead. In my experience memory ownership bugs are almost non-existent, an entire class of problems is wiped out.

It's clear that since you're asking about this stuff you haven't actually gone down this road yourself, which means that you're railing against something you don't understand out of fear of something different.

  #include <vector>

  using namespace std;

  vector<int> makeVec() {
    vector<int> v{1,2,3};
    return move(v);
  }

  int main() {
    auto  a = makeVec();
    return 0;
  }

Keep an open mind, there's a reason people consider old C style archaic.

oh. my. god. THE COMPLEXITY. The systemic issues.

I'm hearing it, I'm not seeing it. Repeating the same thing isn't evidence.

My friend, you don't understand the first thing about how computers perform their work, let alone how you have to balance these concerns with software architectural concerns.

Seems like projection when you're fine with double memory allocations and double indirection. Again you can make these bold statements but saying pointer chasing has no performance impact is what people say when they don't understand the cost of TLB misses and caches misses.

C++ likes to embed "objects" as values

"C++" doesn't like to do anything. It has things in the language like destructors that basically no one has ever been against until now.

You wouldn't "profit" from RAII

I don't know what this means but people using features a certain way doesn't have anything to do with destructors. That's the definition of a straw man fallacy.

It's like your C program doing double indirection. You can't blame C for that (unless you want to try to say that not defining your structs is a good idea).

You cannot call methods & operators on pointers. You cannot do `std::vector<Foo> ptr = ...; do_foo(ptr[i]);`. Get it?*

Yes you can, an operator is just a function, get it?. You don't need to because you can use things as values and not fragile pointers that have to have their ownership semantics memorized for every individual data structure and function (interesting that you never addressed this). You don't get operators in C, so it's bold to be wrong and about a feature you are somehow denigrating.

Also one separate function being different than the operator is not a language level feature, it is how that one library data structure is made.

I'm sorry. C++ is broken.

Based on you misunderstanding it because youtubers steered you wrong?

All I was arguing was that destructors are good and you are having a massive reaction to that that seems to include every misguided frustration with the whole language you can think of.

How many did you read?

Way too many.

And you said it causes brain damage?

Move it, so simple, pointer invalidation.

It works for everyone else, I'm not sure why this is controversial.

You are continuing to fight strawmans

Like bringing up PIMPL for no reason?

Have you thought about... not moving it?

No, because I want to have ownership semantics and be able to return data structures from functions while having clear ownership that is part of the program and not knowledge that has to be gleamed from source code or learning from crashes.

Have you considered why C++ is like a pile on top of a pile of fixes, exceptions, copy semantics, move semantics, rvalue references... That is the polar opposite of simple.

Which one is the argument against destructors? The simplest thing in the world. Copying and moving are solutions to problems you already demonstrated, you just don't want to admit that you and everyone else has them.

Now you're claiming you want to allocate on the heap and I am not doing real datastructures on the heap??? Please give up. It is embarassing.

It's interesting to claim (without evidence) that I don't know what I'm talking about while saying stuff like this. If you follow what I said before the fact is that with your forward declarations you are putting the structs on the heap so that they become globals and can outlive the constructors. Then whatever fields they contain are going to be pointers to the heap for the actual data of the data structure. When you want that data you have to dereference the pointer to the struct, then dereference the pointer to whatever arrays you are using. This is double indirection. It is more allocations, more memory frees, more pointer dereferencing (all of which are slow) and not necessary. In C++ with value semantics that first struct would be on the stack and gets moved or elided out of the function that creates it. You can't do this with forward declaration because you don't know the size yet.

Or better, please go read any C++ codebase with templates and classes and copy semantics and move semantics. Get more brain damage as a result.

How many did you read?

And please leave me alone.

You don't get to fling a bunch of insults then tell someone to leave you alone. I know you want it both ways but that isn't how it works.

you don't understand what you're talking about Are you insane, You are a weasel Get lost.

Lots of insults, but the difference here is that I know exactly how to do what you're doing in C, but it doesn't seem like you ever tried out modern C++.

How hard is it to understand that to get a class definition, all the stuff that's used inside the class, including declarations of internals like private fields and methods, needs to be included first? How hard is it?

This is a matter of dependencies and if your dependencies are simple definitions too it isn't going to matter. You are going to have to have definitions of your structs and functions in C too. A data structure without dependencies in C++ is no different than a data structure without dependencies in C. This isn't a language issue and has nothing to do with destructors.

without insane C++ classes and features.

It isn't destructors that cause long build times, if it was you could prove it. I said this multiple times but you're mixing a bunch of stuff together because you know staying on topic doesn't match what you're upset about.

I'm talking about systemic problems, which manifest in lots of ways

You didn't give any explanation of these, you just made a lot of claims. You still seem to think claiming something with no explanation is evidence. A kid saying they run fast over and over doesn't prove anything, you have to show it.

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

They are both forward declarations which I avoid like the plague for all the reasons I outlined before. Your whole schtick is that you want forward declarations and don't care about all the ownership and value semantics that save you from 50 years of C bugs.

There is no "like every other value" in C++, regardless of how hard people are trying, and regardless of how much complexity these people pile on top of this language.

Another claim without evidence. Make a value, it goes out of scope. Make an 'object' data structure, it goes out of scope. Move it if you need to, so simple!

which you can simply copy as bytes.

Copy constructors do this if you need them to. You can't just use plain structs with static sized arrays for everything, at some point you need to make real data structures that use the heap and then you will need to manage their memory. It could be automated for you but you might have to be a little more open minded.

  Bar *bar_create();
  void bar_destroy(Bar *bar);

Not only that, but you have a pointer to the structure instead of it living on the heap. Now you have unnecessary indirection, allocation and pointer chasing when in C++ you could just treat it like a value. If you have a heap allocation in there you are now hopping from one pointer for the struct allocation to another pointer for the actual data allocation.

With your API you created an object with none of the huge advantages of being able to treat it like every other value in modern C++.

Everyone figured out how fragile this was since it started 50 years ago. Decades ago people worked out that the same problems happened constantly and came up with solutions which brought us (most of us) to where we are now.

This is not about single-build times

Now it's not about build times? I thought it was and you had said that all along? Now the story changes again.

I'm not repeating once again how this requires you to include the world for the smallest thing which is extremely painful.

Nope. You only need a class definition. Definitions don't take up any compilation time.

And "in a fraction of a second" is a ridiculous argument when it's well known that C++ single build times are spectacularly bad and developers have to wait way too much for clean rebuilds too.

People don't get themselves into bad build times because of simple class definitions. All 6MB of sqlite compiles in a single second. When people have C++ build time problems it's because of templates.

you don't do PIMPL.

I never said I did, I avoid it because that's basically what you are doing here.

Plus, PIMPL does add a runtime indirection btw

You added one already. PIMPL is the same as your indirection from heap allocating a predeclared struct so that you can return it from your constructor. The price is heap allocation and indirection.

I've said many other things.

You have, not all of them on topic.

You're a loudmouth

This is text.

How about you simply Ctrl+F for "build time" or "compile time" and admit you have been lying, have been extremely adversarial, and have been incredibly lazy?

More insults but there is no difference here.

I looked at your godbolt link, which part of this does C avoid? Is your whole argument here that you have to define a class' data even though you have to do the same thing in C?

Is it your argument against an optional feature seriously that you can't use the PIMPL pattern from the 90s ? Holy mother of god, that's what is so important? Every struct and class definition you have ever written compiles in a fraction of a second on hardware from 15 years ago this makes no sense at all. It even took you an entire novel of "nu uh" and "this program was written in C so everything else is bad" to get there.

What happened to all the toxic program destroying architecture effects? Now it boils down to something that is no different but without it all the same memory bugs persist.

We have been from about your 2nd comment on.

Nope, if you think forming beliefs from youtubers is so negative, don't do it.

It's one of the topics, one of the manifestations of the systemic issues I was talking about, if you had paid any sort of attention.

Nope, destructors have nothing to do with this and this was never something you mentioned before. If it was you could show it with godbolt.

You are still not understanding? I gathered you seem to be a game developer of some sorts but you don't understand the simplest basic facts about C++?

Show me. They are just functions, usually one or two lines.

Please show me how you can call a destructor in C++ without seeing the declaration of the destructor.

You have declarations of functions the same as in C, did you try this?

JUST DO IT. SHOW THE EVIDENCE. DONT TALK.

Show me what you're talking about in godbolt.

First, tone it down a little please,

I think it's time for you to shut up

you fantasized it

your lack of capacity to grok the context of the issue

Now we're firmly into the insults phase. You can just admit that you don't know about something or that you don't have evidence, or you can ask questions, but resorting to insults instead of just saying "I don't know" or "I haven't considered that" or "I'm fine with what I'm using so I haven't worried about what other people are doing" is unfortunate.

you've misunderstood the part about a "Sleep"

I repeated what was in the comments. This is another example of claims without evidence, you realize that right? You didn't explain it and how I was wrong, you just said "no, nu uh".

3 seconds of build time

Are you talking about build times now? What happened to all the stuff about being terrible for the APIs and so toxic for the whole system that you can't write anything in godbolt?

how you haven't managed to stop talking down on me

Now it's time to play both sides and fling insults but pretend that me asking for evidence is talking down to you.

I've explained multiple times why I think it does. If you want a destructor declared in C++, you have to give the full class definition.

Finally an explanation of some sort. Too bad this isn't true. Do you know that the implementation can be in a compilation unit just like C?

you are providing zero evidence for your baseless (even counter-factual) accusations towards myself. What you say makes ZERO sense.

You believe things without evidence and you have said where they come from. Then when asked for evidence you grasp at anything from insults to completely unrelated things like a single program that you like which demonstrates nothing. Those are the actual facts.

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 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

Here's a complex memory cleanup race condition that's 'solved' with a sleep function. 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.

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.

Like, in the world where I've referenced this in 3 of my 4 previous comments, as an example of a serious application built without RAII, which leans heavily into arenas, resulting in extremely compact and fast code?

You bringing up something unrelated doesn't mean anything just because you keep bringing it up.

Do you think anyone thought that nothing can be built without RAII? Did you think that was an argument anyone was making? Do you think someone walking barefoot means shoes don't do anything?

Is this an exam?

There is one singular question and you seem to think it's absurd to answer it and not veer off into a hundred different directions about unrelated projects and your favorite influencers instead of being able to focus on it.

it's that RAII comes at a large cost in terms of typing

If it automates things why would it have a typing cost? That makes zero sense.

it will "infect" your codebase,

How? It can be used or not.

requiring an all or nothing approach or you're actually back to manually managing memory

It's completely the opposite, you can use data structures that have destructors or not use them at all, this is not only not true it doesn't even confront the utility.

It will break modularization of your codebase, leading to subtle but substantive degradation.

These are strange claims, they don't have any evidence because you didn't explain why this would be true. It nonsensical, have you ever actually used these features? What does "substantive degredation" even mean or refer to? It's just running deallocation automatically, which you already have to do.

This is part of what leads to long compile times

No it isn't, it's running the same function at the end of a scope. Where are you getting this idea? Templates you could say this about, but a simple concept has nothing to do with it.

RAII adds temporal coupling between memory allocation and data lifetimes,

"Temporal coupling" doesn't make any sense, you have to deallocate memory anyway, why would it be any different to not have to write the line explicitly?

Separate allocation approaches on the other hand allow for better modularization and abstraction, and allow to handle allocation more centrally instead of cluttering allocation conerns across all types of a codebase.

Why would this make any sense? If you want to create a global you create a global. If you aren't freeing something when you don't use it, you're creating a global whether you want to or not.

This whole thing reads like being at the end of a game of telephone, there are no actual explanations in here and pretty much nothing that makes sense, but at least you actually focused on the question.

If you want to have a real explanation, especially to yourself, you should probably show a scenario on godbolt or something like that. It really seems like people have led you down a path that doesn't make sense and you haven't gone back and tested it yourself.

I also use a subset but the point, which I already preemptively explained, is that they don't have a technical explanation for ignoring this part of it.

It just seems to be wholesale aggravation so they want to reject things without a sound reason.

If someone asked me why I avoid inheritance I would go on a well thought through rant that connects real problems to the pragmatic reality of what that feature brings.

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?