143 reputation
4
bio website
location
age
visits member for 1 year, 9 months
seen Nov 30 at 21:48

Mar
15
awarded  Scholar
Mar
15
accepted Is Non-Deterministic Resource-Management a Leaky Abstraction?
Mar
12
awarded  Supporter
Mar
12
comment Is Non-Deterministic Resource-Management a Leaky Abstraction?
I'm getting confused here. If one needs to add special destruction code to a C++ subclass, it doesn't change its usage patterns at all, because it's automatic. That means the superclass and subclass can still be used interchangeably. But with explicit notation for resource-management, a subclass needing explicit destruction would make its usage incompatible with a superclass, wouldn't it? (Assuming the superclass didn't need explicit destruction.)
Mar
12
revised Is Non-Deterministic Resource-Management a Leaky Abstraction?
Provided an additional example of the deterministic types.
Mar
12
awarded  Editor
Mar
12
revised Is Non-Deterministic Resource-Management a Leaky Abstraction?
Clarification. Changed a useless tag.
Mar
12
comment Is Non-Deterministic Resource-Management a Leaky Abstraction?
Hmm, perhaps using C++ as the example of deterministic resource management was an error on my behalf due to its low-level nature. How about Perl 5? It's fully garbage-collected, yet has deterministic resource management due to reference counting. (That also leads to circular references, but that's another discussion for another day.)
Mar
12
awarded  Student
Mar
12
asked Is Non-Deterministic Resource-Management a Leaky Abstraction?