My point is that you need a "destructor" even with a GC. Continuing with my example you need to pop your tab from the data structure containing your tabs and you have to make sure that all references are dropped so that the GC will do its work.
When I write Rust code I basically never have to explicitly free anything outside of FFI code dealing with C pointer or the like. The most straightforward way to allocate anything in Rust is to reify a Box which frees its contents when it's dropped. The data is freed when I remove it from containers or when a Box gets dropped. The closest I get to garbage collection is using a reference-counted pointer here and there (and only after careful consideration).
I really don't see what complexity the GC removes in this situation, besides letting you write code without having to care about ownership which, as I stated earlier, I consider to be an antipattern.
>"just do this X and you don't need to use GC" is a reason people use GC languages, because they don't want to think about or write this "X"
A lazy programmer is a good programmer but it's also important to recognize when something can't be pushed under the rug. I don't want to think about or write documentation and unit tests either, yet here we are. If I had to maintain an application and I ask the coder "when exactly are these objects deleted?" and they answer "dunno lol, I let the GC figure it out" I'd be extremely worried.
> it's also important to recognize when something can't be pushed under the rug.
If you haven't heard of it, you might be interested in the Waterbed Theory of Complexity[1]. The idea behind it is that it's not that you can't push down complexity in an area, but often that complexity just pops up in a different area. For example, you can do away with the vast majority of allocating and freeing memory, but the complexity of doing that pops up again when you start having to tune your GC or use very special patterns to avoid/minimize GC freezes.
That's not to say there's not a benefit to that sometimes. If you can push the complexity away from the majority of use cases to a few special use cases, that might be a net win. It doesn't always feel like that though if you're the person stuck trying to coax that last few percent of performance optimizations out of a runtime that only gives you so many levers and dials to work with.
I think some of the same concerns that make a dynamic/scripting language a poor choice compared toa compiled and static one are the same things that might make a GC language a poor choice compared to a manually memory managed one, and it's just a matter of scale that separates them. Is performance important? A scripting language might be a poor choice. Is performance really important? Then a GC language might be a poor choice. On the other hand, if I'm writing some program to run correctly once or twice ever, and it might actually take more tome to write than it will ever run for (e.g. a script to parse and/or transform data on disk for me to fix a problem), then is anything really gained from manual memory management? Writing that in Perl or Bash is a valid option there, and that's about as far away from memory management as you can get. For portions of my career, I've spent half or more of my time writing programs like that to help with sysadmin tasks.
The Waterbed theory is stupid, because a given requirement can be handled in one place in the system, or it can proliferate into every module, giving rise to a more complexity to achieve the same functionality.
So that is to say, when we push down a "bump" of complexity in one place, seventeen bumps at least as large can crop up elsewhere. Moreover, that seventeen is just today; we might have paved the way for more such bumps now being necessary going forward as functionality is added, whereas if we kept the original bump, it would stay the same. Water is not a good model for complexity because it is incompressible for all practical purposes; if we push down a liter of water here, the places where it pops up add up to just a liter.
For exmaple, virtual memory is considerably simpler than individual modules of a program implementing a scheme for swapping code and data to disk and back.
> when we push down a "bump" of complexity in one place, seventeen bumps at least as large can crop up elsewhere.
I think you've taken the metaphor about a waterbed and design advice a bit too literally. :)
When you push complexity down in one area and it pops up in another, there's no guarantee that it's of the same overall magnitude, as it would be in a real waterbed. Sometimes it's larger, and sometimes it's smaller.
The same idea applies to whether we should all write assembly or use a higher level language to accomplish our computing needs. We push down the complexity of knowing exactly what the processor is doing at any one moment for a easier to manage overall view of what we want to accomplish. Overall, the net effect is a lessening of complexity for most people, but for those that want or need to know exactly what is going on, there more complexity. Still, overall I think the net effect is less complexity for most people, vastly outweighing the time and effort a few put into figuring out why something isn't as expected.
On the other end of the spectrum, using a dynamically typed scripting language might save people a lot of time initially, or when prototyping, or on smaller programs, but as those programs become larger, the lack of constraints (which provide a small but immediate complexity hurdle) can build up and overwhelm a large project that might otherwise had an easier time if some more constraints were required along the way.
No one tool or paradigm is perfect for every task, and we should not expect one to be. We don't usually commute in dump trucks, and we don't usually haul lots of debris in compact cars. I see no reason why it should be any different for programming languages. Sometimes all you need is a 10 line bash script, and given that information, I doubt there's a huge level of complexity that's going to rear its head later because I didn't write it in some lower level language.
The waterbed theory in fact explicitly states that the amount of complexity is preserved no matter how it is distributed. The Wikipedia definition of it explicitly talks about how the volume of water remains constant due to its incompressibility.
If that isn't taken literally, it informs of nothing we don't already suspect. It tells us that for each functional requirement, there is at least one piece of code in the system somewhere. If we remove these lines of code from one place, or places, something has to be added elsewhere (possibly way more lines, or way fewer) so that the requirement remains implemented.
> If the waterbed metaphor isn't taken literally it informs of nothing we don't already suspect.
It informs you of nothing you didn't already suspect. I think it's useful to remind people of something that's fairly obvious ans self explanatory if you think about it, but not everyone does, and having an easy and slightly odd metaphor to point to helps the point to get across. The fact that you think it's obvious is actually one of its major benefits. You can immediately start exploring the consequences of it instead of spending time proving it. Honestly, of all the criticisms to level at a metaphor, "too obvious" isn't one I would consider worth bringing up. Obvious metaphors are used to good effect all the time.
Edit to address your prefixed paragraph:
> The waterbed theory in fact explicitly states that the amount of complexity is preserved no matter how it is distributed.
If you read carefully, it says that the minimum level of complexity may not be reduced. Who is to say the minimum level of complexity has already been reached? Or that pushing down a level above the minumum in some area won't cause only the minimum level to rise elsewhere (or vice-versa)?
I like the waterbed theory, thanks, I hadn't heard of it before.
You're absolutely right, in the GC context you:
(1) Have to manually reference count / manage external resources like sockets and files because you can't count on the destructor to ever run.
(2) Lose determinism and then have to spend huge amounts of effort tweaking GC parameters to fix your issue, but to your point, it becomes a Jenga tower where you touch one part and the whole thing falls down again.
(3) Can easily still leak huge portions of your object graph by, for instance, throwing them into long-lived dictionaries.
In what memory management paradigm can you free the object in a long-lived dictionary without removing it from that dictionary, and do you advocate this paradigm?
When I write Rust code I basically never have to explicitly free anything outside of FFI code dealing with C pointer or the like. The most straightforward way to allocate anything in Rust is to reify a Box which frees its contents when it's dropped. The data is freed when I remove it from containers or when a Box gets dropped. The closest I get to garbage collection is using a reference-counted pointer here and there (and only after careful consideration).
I really don't see what complexity the GC removes in this situation, besides letting you write code without having to care about ownership which, as I stated earlier, I consider to be an antipattern.
>"just do this X and you don't need to use GC" is a reason people use GC languages, because they don't want to think about or write this "X"
A lazy programmer is a good programmer but it's also important to recognize when something can't be pushed under the rug. I don't want to think about or write documentation and unit tests either, yet here we are. If I had to maintain an application and I ask the coder "when exactly are these objects deleted?" and they answer "dunno lol, I let the GC figure it out" I'd be extremely worried.