re: Destructors and Finalization revisited

Tom Welch — Tue, 20 Jan 2004 20:45:00 GMT

Ultimately, the programmer is going to have to remember to do the things he HAS to do. My only thought here is to make what HAS to be done as straight-forward and consistent as possible. Since all CLR languages do not treat destructors in the same manner the problem has become inconsistent and obfuscated. In my opinion, it would have been much better for each class to override a Close() method from Object to close open resources before finalization or destruction.

Besides, most of the time you need to Close() resources before letting the object sit in the GC pool awaiting destruction. ADO.NET XxxConnection classes are a prime example. Heaven help you if you forget to Close() explicitly.

I applaud the decision to use the same keywords when there were subtle differences. The last thing we need is to try to explain that 'create' is just like 'new' except yada, yada, yada.

As for the format, I greatly appreciate the "why does C# do this?" format. It gets the mind working. I'd rather try to figure it out, get it wrong, and then learn why rather than read something and take it for granted.

re: Destructors and Finalization revisited

Christian Nagel — Wed, 21 Jan 2004 10:33:00 GMT

Tom, I prefer having different keywords Close and Dispose. Classes that we are used to closing have a Close method in addition to Dispose.
With the ADO.NET connection classes you mentioned, these classes have a different behavior with Close and Dispose.