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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-03 22:46:11 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail From: Martin Krischik Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language) Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2004 08:41:56 +0200 Organization: AdaCL Message-ID: <1548938.e6y38bfck5@linux1.krischik.com> References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org> <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com> <87r7v5zao0.fsf@insalien.org> <6803831.c4KqqVc08g@linux1.krischik.com> <87vfkgy9z6.fsf@insalien.org> Reply-To: krischik@users.sourceforge.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1081061026 02 1194 B1mRGgKOZ2dDrHM 040404 06:43:46 X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de X-ID: GDh0JEZbZeq07jlYbOqjbv0HPhCjtxpk5SBzKMX5fmM+B1ue8-NhwD User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6737 Date: 2004-04-04T08:41:56+02:00 List-Id: Ludovic Brenta wrote: > Martin Krischik writes: >> Ludovic Brenta wrote: >> >> > David Starner writes: >> >> On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:18:42 -0500, Beth Bruzan wrote: >> >> > However, with proper design >> >> > and implementation, Ada does not need garbage collection, >> >> >> >> And with proper design and implementation, C does not need bounds >> >> checking. If your allocation and deallocation is trivial, you don't >> >> need garbage collection; but if you look at something like GCC, they >> >> implemented garbage collection in C because it was too much work to >> >> keep track of the allocations. I have no doubt they would have done >> >> the same thing in Ada. >> > >> > This turned out not to work that well; there have been large >> > performance and memory footprint concerns in GCC because of GC. Linus >> > Torvalds recommends reference counting as a better, more predictable >> > and more efficient mechanism. >> >> True, but for reference counting everybody has to play by the rules. > > Is this not a strength rather than a weakness? For you an me and most readers of this group. > Garbage collectors > encourage sloppy programming. I have seen this phenomenon in action. True. But it can also help in tricky situation. For example: you can only pass an integral type and an access to a task. If the task is library level it becomes almost impossible to deallocate the memory. Of corse, reference counting is enough here. With Regards Martin -- mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net http://www.ada.krischik.com