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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Date: Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:50:41 +0100
From: Gautier <gautier@fakeaddress.nil>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (Windows/20061207)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: in defense of GC (was Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?)
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>
In-Reply-To: <u7iv18hm3.fsf_-_@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.77.170.148
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 83.77.170.148
Message-ID: <45c3b218$1_1@news.bluewin.ch>
X-Trace: news.bluewin.ch 1170453016 83.77.170.148 (2 Feb 2007 22:50:16 +0100)
Organization: Bluewin AG
Complaints-To: abuse@bluewin.ch
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 127.0.0.1
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!wns13feed!worldnet.att.net!164.128.36.58!news.ip-plus.net!newsfeed.ip-plus.net!news.bluewin.ch!not-for-mail
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8849
Date: 2007-02-02T22:50:41+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ray Blaak:

> It is only sloppy programming in the context of manual clean up. With a valid
> GC you do not have to clean up at all. One simply stops using objects when
> they no longer need them, just "dropping them on the floor", leaving it up to
> the GC to eventually collect it.

Sorry for my ignorance in this field, but from a real household point of view, 
it seems to me that there is a big difference between
  (1) "stop using an object"
and
  (2) "drop an object on the floor".

In case of (1), I would hate that my object is taken from the table and thrown 
away by my garbage collecting robot GeeCee. Hey, does he know I really won't 
use my object anymore ?! In the case (2), it's OK that GeeCee takes it away, 
but then there is an action (Drop_on_the_floor) and I can do it in Ada 
(procedure Drop_on_the_floor_and_even_directly_throw_away is new 
Ada.Unchecked_Deallocation).

Thanks for an explanation...
______________________________________________________________
Gautier         -- http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/index.htm
Ada programming -- http://www.mysunrise.ch/users/gdm/gsoft.htm

NB: For a direct answer, e-mail address on the Web site!