proposal-explicit-resource-managemen VS v

In addition to this, is the new (stage 3 even!)explicit resource management proposal[0], supported by TypeScript version >= 5.2[1]

Though I agree that async context is better fit for this generally, the RMP should be good for telemetry around objects that have defined lifetime semantics, which is a step in the right direction you can use today

[0]: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-managemen...

[1]: https://www.totaltypescript.com/typescript-5-2-new-keyword-u...

There's a conversation I had with Ron Buckton, the proposal champion, mainly on this specific issue. [1]

Short answer: Yes, Disposable can leak if you forget "using" it. And it will leak if the Disposable is not guarded by advanced GC mechanisms like the FinalizationRegistry.

Unlike C# where it's relatively easier to utilize its GC to dispose undisposed resources [2], properly utilizing FinalizationRegistry to do the same thing in JavaScript is not that simple. In response to our conversation, Ron is proposing adding the use of FinalizationRegistry as a best practice note [3], but only for native handles. It's mainly meant for JS engine developers.

Most JS developers wrapping anything inside a Disposable would not go through the complexity of integrating with FinalizationRegistry, thus cannot gain the same level of memory-safety, and will leak if not "using" it.

IMO this design will cause a lot of problems, misuses and abuses. But making JS to look more like C# is on Microsoft's agenda so they are probably not going to change anything.

[1]: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-managemen...

I'm not _entirely_ sure which RAII you mean, but if you mean something like C#'s `using` or Java's `try-with-resources` or Python's `with`, then https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-managemen... and https://github.com/tc39/proposal-async-explicit-resource-man... are in stage 3 (of 4 stages) in ECMAScript's language proposal lifecycle and will be coming to a JS engine near you behind a flag soon-ish.

I'd prefer something with a more sound type system, and something that makes cleaning up resources easier and more ergonomic.

This might help with cleanup: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-managemen...

But I'm not sure anything will help with the type system. For example, this drives me absolutely insane: https://www.typescriptlang.org/play#code/MYewdgziA2CmB00QHMA...

There's a proposal for syntax to help with this in JS, incidentally: https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-managemen...

There is no reason why you could not, in principle, have Rust-style compile-time borrow checking in a managed language.

As an extreme example (that I have occasionally thought about doing though probably won't), you could fork TypeScript and add ownership and lifetime and inherited-mutability annotations to it, and have the compiler enforce single-ownership and shared-xor-mutable except in code that has specifically opted out of this. As with existing features of TypeScript's type system, this wouldn't affect the emitted code at all—heap allocations would still be freed nondeterministically by the tracing GC at runtime, not necessarily at the particular point in the program where they stop being used—but you'd get the maintainability benefits of not allowing unrestricted aliasing.

(Since you wouldn't have destructors, you might need to use linear instead of affine types, to ensure that programmers can't forget to call a resource object's cleanup method when they're done with it. Alternatively, you could require https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-managemen... to be used, once that gets added to JavaScript.)

Of course, if you design a runtime specifically to be targeted by such a language, more becomes possible. See https://without.boats/blog/revisiting-a-smaller-rust/ for one sketch of what this might look like.

Things like https://github.com/tc39/proposal-explicit-resource-managemen.... Essentially better language level support for objects which represent some IO resource that should be reliably closed when a user is done with it. Something like the `defer` statement in Go is really missing from JS.

Their site is clearly showing the language is in beta. The V documentation also states that autofree is WIP, and to use the GC instead. This isn't a corporate created language, but looks to be a true volunteer open source effort from people around the world.

Their community, in comparison to others, even has their discussions open and open threads for criticism[1]. These

[1]https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610

V also has this https://github.com/vlang/v/blob/master/doc/docs.md#embed_fil...

Goroutines was the selling point for me until they decided to introduce telemetry in their toolchain; that was what forced me to stop using Golang as a whole.

About GC, I would say: if you implement C++'s RAII mechanism to replace garbage collection, then I believe this project will have a bright future.

My final question is the following: how `pcz` compares to V language, from a syntax's perspective [1]?

[1] https://github.com/vlang/v

V has the right to exist, have its supporters, and do things its own way. The creator and developers of V, from what I have seen, has always responded well to constructive criticism. Their language has discussions opened at their GitHub, unlike those for various other languages. They even have a thread for what people don't like and want improved about the language[1], again, something many other languages don't have.

A lot of what was going on initially, was coming from obvious competitors, to include being uncivil, inflammatory, and insulting. The initial "criticism" was not so much that, but false accusations of the language being a scam, vaporware, fraud, or didn't really exist. To include attacks and jealousy about its funding and having supporters. This was not any kind of "valid" criticism, that the creator or contributors of the language could reason about.

The "criticism" never died down, but rather after V was open-sourced and established itself on GitHub. The initial series of false accusations could not stand nor could the support it was getting be stopped. So, the rhetoric and targets shifted to whatever could be found to go after on the newly released alpha version of the language and its new website. In that new mix of what was being thrown at it, there were indeed some very valid criticisms, as can be found with any new language.

Constructive and valid criticism, is not the same as insults, trolling, misinformation, rivalry, or false accusations. There is clearly a difference. It's disingenuous to pretend something from one group is the same as the other, or that the intent behind what is being done is not different.

[1] https://github.com/vlang/v/discussions/7610