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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3498dd887729ed19 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: lars.farm@ite.mh.se (Lars Farm) Subject: Re: Garbage Collection in Ada Date: 1996/10/15 Message-ID: <199610152347183135205@dialup99-4-10.swipnet.se>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189728119 references: <01bbb910$f1e73f60$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se> <199610132138291604607@dialup101-6-14.swipnet.se> <19961015122319668722@dialup98-6-12.swipnet.se> organization: pv nntp-posting-user: s-49817 newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > Hmmm! I am surprised anyone would write this if they > had used GC languages. ... > You may in practice need to be just as careful about adding > > Junk := null; Further down in the same post I also said: "if a solution solves a majority of problems and leaves some to traditional techniques, is that not better than a solution that solves none?" Granted, p = null; is different from Free(p); but the effect and intent is the same and Free() is a traditional technique. There are also other cases when one has to interfere. In other posts to this thread I have said: "I don't think of GC as a Silver Bullet, just a very useful tool." and "GC does one thing, one thing only and does it very well." > People who approach a GC language environment with > this expectation will be disappointed! I don't. This is Usenet, not an academic thesis. The wording doesn't get much time and polish. If that offends you, I apologize. If you find that surprising, then we have failed to communicate and I'm sorry. I trust that you are able to interpret what I said, should you want to. -- Lars Farm, lars.farm@ite.mh.se