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-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.germany.com!feed.xsnews.nl!border-1.ams.xsnews.nl!feeder2.cambrium.nl!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news2.euro.net!feeder1.cambrium.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!193.141.41.141.MISMATCH!npeer1.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-devel!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: in defense of GC (was Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de
Organization: cbb software GmbH
References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <L2ith.12633$ji1.1337@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>
 <mailman.44.1169724732.18371.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <WaBuh.15096$pQ3.10501@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <xwsldwre3j.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <HYPuh.15976$yx6.6882@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <md64ashx3o.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <s1mz41g7d3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ubqkd8yk3.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <AuednXvMpOTR8l_YnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@megapath.net>
 <u7iv18hm3.fsf_-_@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 10:35:43 +0100
Message-ID: <1pzx3y7d2pide.y744copm0ejb$.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Feb 2007 10:35:43 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 17c48236.newsspool3.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=S@nV4X=hmGlPKPPVf;4hUjMcF=Q^Z^V3h4Fo<]lROoRagUcjd<3m<;b8C0aiKS;9Qn[6LHn;2LCVn7enW;^6ZC`dIXm65S@:3>o\0JX<RH]MFf
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8840
Date: 2007-02-02T10:35:43+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 01:37:26 GMT, Ray Blaak wrote:

> "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:

[...]
> Modern GC systems simply do a better job at it them people do.

Maybe, but that does not explain why such GC should be hard-wired. Note you
are talking about systems (plural), but wired could be only one. Why do you
want to forbid me to use my GC?

[...]
> The point is that the programmer is freed from the error prone tedium of
> explicitly managing memory.

This is a misconception. There are two fundamentally different issues:

1. Object scopes
2. Memory management

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."

This is A) mess, B) sloppy programming, C) impossible model in our
networking distributed relativist world.

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