From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_DATE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bbn!inmet!ishmael!inmet!authorplaceholder From: ryer@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Garbage Collection Message-ID: <124000031@inmet> Date: 6 Jan 89 16:58:00 GMT References: <3832@hubcap.UUCP> Nf-ID: #R:hubcap.UUCP:-383200:inmet:124000031:000:1436 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!ryer Jan 6 11:58:00 1989 List-Id: Why some Ada compilers should be allowed to perform garbage collection: a. Because they are to generate code that coexists in an environment with languages like LISP where garbage collection is assumed. They want to operate on data structures shared with other languages. b. Because the current world supply of "reusable" Ada components have not all been written carefully for space management, and in prototyping any reusable component (that works) may be better than none. c. Because some users are very unconcerned with the efficiency or reusability of their programs. This applies to the run-only-once programs such as in a training environment, or where a computer is used as an oversized desk calculator just to obtain numeric answers. It may be that all computer science students should become careful implementers of ADTs. I doubt that all particle physicists need to develop this discipline even though they may write substantial programs. d. It Is FEASIBLE for the computer to do a good job of garbage collection automatically and it does reduce the size of the source code which does tend to reduce the life cycle cost of owning that code. It may increase execution time but some users will prefer this tradeoff. Therefore, garbage collection should not be prohibited, even though it is inappropriate and harmful in some cases. Different applications can benefit from different compilers. Mike Ryer Intermetrics