From: dweller@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (David Weller)
Subject: Re: Ada vs Modula3
Date: 2 Nov 1994 18:27:25 -0600
Date: 1994-11-02T18:27:25-06:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <399apd$5lk@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM> (raw)
In-Reply-To: CynpF4.6Mn@nntpa.cb.att.com
In article <CynpF4.6Mn@nntpa.cb.att.com>,
Kenneth Almquist <ka@socrates.hr.att.com> wrote:
>Phil Brooke <pjb25@cam.ac.uk> asked:
>> Has anyone got any comments on the relative merits of Modula3 and Ada (9X)?
>
>One major difference is that Moldula 3 has automatic garbage collection.
>Ada implementations are not required to provide this, and most don't.
> Kenneth Almquist
Quite true, since in Ada it's quite possible to create a dynamic
memory system and NOT generate garbage in the first place. Nip 'em
in the bud, so to speak.
--
Proud (and vocal) member of Team Ada! (and Team OS/2) ||This is not your
Ada -- Very Cool. Doesn't Suck. || father's Ada
For all sorts of interesting Ada tidbits, run the command: ||________________
"finger dweller@starbase.neosoft.com | more" (or e-mail with "finger" as subj.)
ObNitPick: Spelling Ada as ADA is like spelling C++ as CPLUSPLUS. :-)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1994-11-03 0:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <37dir6$d93@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk>
1994-11-02 20:11 ` Ada vs Modula3 Kenneth Almquist
1994-11-03 0:27 ` David Weller [this message]
1994-11-03 9:38 ` Robb Nebbe
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox