Re: High-Integrity OO and controlled types

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Mon, 02 May 2011 20:08:43 -0400, Robert A Duff wrote:

> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> 
>>...You gave an example of an
>> overhead caused by local access-to-controlled types.
> 
> No, all access-to-controlled types -- not just local ones.
> And access to non-controlled types that contain controlled components.

If Unchecked_Deallocation is called on each allocated object controlled or
with controlled components, that would make keeping the list of allocated
objects superfluous. I think that restrictions should work in this
direction.

> And it's not just overhead (as in run-time efficiency) -- it's the complexity of
> the run-time support.

Well, but this applies to compile time support too, e.g. optimization and
the GENERICS! Pragmatically, yes, certainly more complex the language thing
is, more likely it is broken. But it is a compiler's property. I, as a
software designer, am not in the position to decide, if the given compiler
has bugs and which language features get spoiled. Thus it does not belong
to a profile.

> And it's not access types per se -- it's heap-allocated objects
> (i.e. "new") that introduces most of the complexity.

I agree, but that is not specific to controlled types.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de