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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657 X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public From: twelch@mediaone.net (Timothy Welch) Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful Date: 1998/08/07 Message-ID: <35cb8058.645630787@news.ne.mediaone.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 378978514 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <6qfhri$gs7$1@nnrp1.dejanews.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Organization: MediaOne -=- Northeast Region Mime-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada Date: 1998-08-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 7 Aug 1998 13:21:17 -0700, Brian Rogoff wrote: >I have nothing against GC, in fact I like it in general and wish its use >was more widespread, but a very large part of your problem is that the >language you are working in > >(1) Doesn't distinguish between pointers to local variables and pointers > to heap allocated memory. > >(2) Allows you to get a pointer to any local variable, rather than forcing > you to be explicit about which local variables can be pointed to, or > "aliased". > >(3) Makes it easy to do all kinds of other arbitrary weird things with > pointers. > Out of curiousity why are (1) and (2) problems? Can't the GC just check to see if the pointer is pointing to memory on the stack? Tim