On: C++23: Removing garbage collection support

[SillyUsername]

It's like when you say Java has a GOTO. It's in bytecode, in the language as a reserved word, and has a rarely used partial implementation vis-a-vis label: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/g-fact-64/ Ultimately, thankfully, it never got made into a real keyword.

[tester756 → SillyUsername]

>Ultimately, thankfully, it never got made into a real keyword.

Why "thankfully"?

[ska → tester756]

canonically: https://homepages.cwi.nl/~storm/teaching/reader/Dijkstra68.p...

but see also 50+ years of back and forth on that subject, other opinions available.

[tester756 → ska]

This paper was written in the times where goto was way more powerful than current goto, wasn't it?

[SillyUsername → tester756]

I'm guessing you never had to debug spaghetti non OO code that used GOTO or you'd not be asking that question :D

[tester756 → SillyUsername]

What's difference between debugging spaghetti non OO code from debuggin spaghetti abused OO code?

both are terrible mess to debug, yet we aren't calling out ppl using (or even abusing) OOP

[SillyUsername → tester756]

Nothing from my POV. GOTO is more necessary (or even required) in procedural non OO languages because of fewer constructs to support modelling or structure. The OP mentioned redundant features, and in OO GOTO is redundant.

[gugagore → SillyUsername]

OO is a lot of things to a lot of people, but it's not "structured control flow".