Re: in defense of GC

[Markus E Leypold <development-2006-8ecbb5cc8aREMOVETHIS@ANDTHATm-e-leypold.de>]

Hi Dmitry, 

I've just been reconsider this thread, which, in my news reader has
become quite unmanageable. I've written (or at list tried to hint at)
in another response that I somehow doubt the sense in continuing this
discussion. I'd like to reinforce that for a last time.

E.g. you write some hardly understandable statement that somehow mixes
up memory live times with visibility and scoping (which already made
me doubt you have any idea what "encapsulation" really means) ..., 


> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> > The second issue is less and less relevant as Randy pointed out. The first
> > issue is always relevant. It is a good design to consider where an object
> > exists. GC [and upward closures] is an attitude of making everything
> > potentially global. In fact it is worse than just global. It is "I don't
> > know where I need that damn thing."

but what is worse, you get refuted by Ray Blake, ...

> GC does not affect visibility or scoping. That is an orthogonal issue, and
> still quite properly under the control of the programmer. Upward closures do
> not make an object more global unless the closure explicitly exposes the
> object for external use.

.. and in more word, but not as well formulated, by me. But do we get
any feedback on that? No, instead we just continue the discussion with
some other quirky notion if yours which until then was a side issue.

>> I am a long proponent of procedural types for Ada. Now consider. A
>> procedure is a limited object. Limited objects can be returned in Ada 2005.
>> What else you need? [Note, this is still not an upward closure, I am
>> opposing.] 

>> I certainly prefer OO solution because it explicitly maintains the context
>> of the operation. It is easier to understand for the reader and it easier
>> to maintain.

And similar things happen in all sub-threads spawned by you or in
which you participate.

Does it make sense under the circumstances to continue the discussion?
I don't think so. 

And I fear to become a crank myself but just arguing OT (!!)  notions in c.l.a.
(and that includes my excursions into GC, FP and typesystems).

So I'm calling quits to this discussion (at least as far as my
participation goes).

Regards -- Markus