> As early as 1981, I pointed out that by reducing the number of objects that I had to keep track of explicitly from many tens of thousands to a few dozens, I had reduced the intellectual effort needed to get the program right from a Herculean task to something manageable, or even easy.

Fast forward a few decades, and we're still very much on this journey of finding the right abstractions/interfaces/libraries/languages. I feel like there must be a complexity equivalent to Parkinson's law: complexity expands to fill the space left in between abstractions.

I think more people need to see this. This is how the creator of C++ thinks we should be writing code. This is what he thinks code should look like. To split a string by whitespace we should use `while (cin >> s)`. We should have a `typedef` in the middle of functions. Iterations should use `.begin()` and `.end()` everywhere. There might even be a bug with a trailing "+" appearing in the output?

Imagine if this was a new language that the dev community was seeing for the first time. It's hard to imagine it gaining much traction.

Show 4 replies

> Modified February 26, 2022

So while a much older date is probably appropriate, maybe 20-30 years ago, we can at least mark this (2022) until somebody justifies a particular previous date.

Show 2 replies

Strange to see std::sort(), auto_ptr and RAII on the same page, when that combination was always broken. Show 2 replies

> How do I deal with memory leaks? > plug in a garbage collector.

Love it!

Show 2 replies

> plug in a garbage collector.

Garbage collectors don't guarantee the absence of memory leaks. GCs remove one important source of memory leaks but it's still very possible in GC languages to use up all available memory unintentionally simply by holding onto things in a big data structure that you've forgotten about (often it's a cache). Weak pointers in conjunction with GC help a great deal with that problem but even so GC and weakness are not going to guarantee leak-prevention in all cases.

I still strongly prefer GC languages to the alternative.

What was the last time when Bjarne Stroustrup pushed any code to production?

In raw C, I like to use the "open"/"close" metaphor and when developing, invoke the routes in parallel. For example:

https://repo.autonoma.ca/repo/mandelbrot/blob/HEAD/main.c

When writing:

    fractal.image = image_open( fractal.width, fractal.height );

I will immediately write below it:

    image_close( fractal.image );

This hides memory allocations altogether. As long as the open/close functions are paired up, it gives me confidence that there are no inadvertent memory leaks. Using small functions eases eyeballing the couplings.

For C++, developing a unit test framework based on Catch2 and ASAN that tracks new/delete invocations is rather powerful. You can even set it up to discount false positives from static allocations. When the unit tests exercise the classes, you get memory leak detection for free.

(I don't mind down votes, but at least reply with what you don't like about this approach, and perhaps suggest a newer approach that we can learn from; contribute to the conversation, please.)

Show 1 reply

Good arguments. But for some reason there are still strange people, who prefer calling malloc/free (or new/delete or something similar) manually. Some of them even invent languages with manual-only memory management (like Zig or Odin). Show 3 replies

Remarkably similar to dykstra on debugging.

This is how I do it: Claude, how do I deal with memory leaks?