Probably closer to defer in Zig than in Go, I would imagine. Defer in Go executes when the function deferred within returns; defer in Zig executes when the scope deferred within exits.

My suggestion is no - first have them do it the hard way. This will help them build the skills to do manual memory management where defer is not available.

Once they do learn about defer they will come to appreciate it much more.

It's still only in a TS, not in ISO C, if that matters.

Desctructors are only comparable when you build a OnScopeExit class which calls a user-provided lambda in its destructor which then does the cleanup work - so it's more like a workaround to build a defer feature using C++ features.

The classical case of 'one destructor per class' would require to design the entire code base around classes which comes with plenty of downsides.

> Anyone who writes C should consider using C++ instead

Nah thanks, been there, done that. Switching back to C from C++ about 9 years ago was one of my better decisions in life ;)

C++ destructors are implicit, while defer is explicit.

You can just look at the code in front of you to see what defer is doing. With destructors, you need to know what type you have (not always easy to tell), then find its destructor, and all the destructors of its parent classes, to work out what's going to happen.

Sure, if the situation arises frequently, it's nice to be able to design a type that "just works" in C++. But if you need to clean up reliably in just this one place, C++ destructors are a very clunky solution.

I think destructors are different, not better. A destructor can’t automatically handle the case where something doesn’t need to be cleaned up on an early return until something else occurs. Also, destructors are a lot of boilerplate for a one-off cleanup.

For the cases where a destructor isn’t readily available, you can write a defer class that runs a lambda passed to its constructor in its destructor, can’t you?

Would be a bit clunky, but that can (¿somewhat?) be hidden in a macro, if desired.

i write C++ every day (i actually like it...) but absolutely no one is going to switch from C to C++ just for dtors.

> I still stay with C89 because I know it will be portable anywhere

With respect, that sounds a bit nuts. It's been 37 years since C89; unless you're targeting computers that still have floppy drives, why give up on so many convenience features? Binary prefixes (0b), #embed, defined-width integer types, more flexibility with placing labels, static_assert for compile-time sanity checks, inline functions, declarations wherever you want, complex number support, designated initializers, countless other things that make code easier to write and to read.

Defer falls in roughly the same category. It doesn't add a whole lot of complexity, it's just a small convenience feature that doesn't add any runtime overhead.

I would say the complexity of implementing defer yourself is a bit annoying for C. However defer itself, as a language feature in a C standard is pretty reasonable. It’s a very straightforward concept and fits well within the scope of C, just as it fit within the scope of zig. As long as it’s the zig defer, not the golang one…

I would not introduce zig’s errdeferr though. That one would need additional semantics changes in C to express errors.

I think a lot of the really old school people don't care, but a lot of the younger people (especially those disillusioned with C++ and not fully enamored with Rust) are in fact quite happy for C to evolve and improve in conservative, simple ways (such as this one).

Not necessarily. In classic C we often build complex state machines to handle errors - especially when there are many things that need to be initialized (malloced) one after another and each might fail. Think the infamous "goto error".

I think defer{} can simplify these flows sometimes, so it can indeed be useful for good old style C.