friendly-pow VS scope_guard

It kinda does? Here's the puzzle creator library: https://github.com/FriendlyCaptcha/friendly-pow

Yeah, WebAssembly have i64/u64 types as first class citizens unlike JavaScript which should emulate it or use BigInt which drastically slower than native 64-bit types. That's why crypto algorithms got a lot of speed benefits. AssemblyScript also show this. See this:

https://github.com/FriendlyCaptcha/friendly-pow

E.g. see this implementation: https://ricab.github.io/scope_guard/

But also I should make the point that you generally don't need to write defer-like statements at all when using RAII because it's implemented in the actual type. So it's only more code overall for types that are used only once or maybe twice.

Meanwhile I will check and use https://github.com/ricab/scope_guard

> low level details leak into your high level description of code, making the two coupled. You can’t make them invisible.

It's your job to make it not to leak. You have to write Modern C++ wrappers around C libs.

Similarity, The same can be said for Java. You can do low level in Java.

C++ is not C. C++ has backward compatibility with C.

Look at Boost folks, they wrote a Modern C++ wrapper around a C HTTP parser.

> And as I said, I’m familiar with RAII, it’s really great when the given object is scope-based, but can’t do anything otherwise.

Nothing is impossible.

You can use Scope Exit Guard with QT Widget.

https://github.com/ricab/scope_guard

> And if the new subclass has some non-standard object life cycle you HAVE to handle that case somewhere else, modifying another aspect of the code. It is not invisible, unless you want leaking code/memory corruption.

Again, Scope Exit Guards solve your problem!