Re: newbie Q: storage management

["Samuel A. Mize" <smize@magellan.bgm.link.com>]

The only thing I don't understand about this posting is why you think
it contradicts mine.  The technical argument is that there is no
consensus on whether GC is needed or what kind should be specified.  GC
advocates don't agree with that, but were unable to convince everyone
else during the revision process.  The best approach now for GC advocates
would be to do one or more straw-man implementations.

The only difference that I see is that you are stating that the right
decision was made, while I was trying to stay value-neutral in this
one posting. 

Just for the record, I don't think an annex would have been appropriate.
I'd like to see some kind of working group -- formal or not -- to
coordinate people working on possible new language extensions.  For
one thing, it would give such language-change advocates a better focus
for their work than c.l.a postings, and anyone interested could visit
their web site and stay in touch.

Anyone know of such an effort?  Anyone else interested?

Sam Mize



Robert Dewar wrote:
> 
> iSamuel said
> 
> <<The only decent argument I've seen against a GC annex is that it
> would have to either select a single approach and denigrate all
> others, or else provide such a generalized interface as to be a
> pointless standard.  I DON'T AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THIS, since
> I know too little about garbage collection research.  The best
> refutation would be a strawman of the package(s) and/or the
> rules that the annex would provide.
> 
> I suspect it mostly didn't get an annex because the pro-GC forces
> were sociologically unable to force the issue.>>
> 
> Samuel, you don't understand the dynamics behind the special needs
> annexes. They are VERY conservatively chosen, and are supposed to
> represent only items on which there was a clear consensus that for
> certain application areas, the annex facilities were clearly an
> absolute necessity, and it was important that if such facilities
> were provided, then they should be provided in a common way.
> 
> In the GC case, there was no such consensus. The general impression was
> that it was unlikely that many Ada compilers would implement GC, and
> in any case there was certainly NO consensus on what facillities should
> be required of compilers that might try.
> 
> I would be VERY much opposed to trying to standardize this facility
> at this stage, we simply don't know enough, and even those who favor
> GC strongly have VERY different ideas about what facilities should be
> provided.
> 
> As I said before, don't put your efforts into an ANSI committee, put them
> into an actual implementation. It is certainly doable, as has been
> demonstrated by the GCC port of Modula-3 -- yes it's just a research
> project that was never fully finished, but it got far enough to be an
> effective proof of feasibility.
> 
> If there was a GNAT with garbage collectoin that turned out to be usable
> and widely used, that would have more effect than anything said here on
> the progress towards routine use of GC in Ada environments.

-- Samuel Mize           (817) 619-8622               "Team Ada"
-- Hughes Training Inc.  PO Box 6171 m/s 400, Arlington TX 76005