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
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news3.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.post.ch!not-for-mail
From: Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GC in Ada
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:53:27 +0100
Organization: Swisscom IP+ (post doesn't reflect views of Swisscom)
Message-ID: <45c9bdb8$1@news.post.ch>
References: <1169636785.504223.139630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
 <SJudnfsXuZsDLyrYnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@comcast.com> <45b8361a_5@news.bluewin.ch>
 <m7ejpj5u9t.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <u7iv8o16m.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <3pejpgfbki.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <epkcru$fk2$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <njirepncb0.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eppn6r$m41$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <vwbqkffq94.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eputhf$p8u$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <dzsldoachu.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eq6v5b$bsb$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <l5iregra8a.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eq9gv3$dre$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <il64aftsq7.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eqa2j8$mfu$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <bpveifcmum.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eqc456$fp5$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <45c99c24$1@news.post.ch> <eqccdc$k89$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 194.41.146.1
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: atlas.ip-plus.net 1170849212 19574 194.41.146.1 (7 Feb 2007 11:53:32
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@ip-plus.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:53:32 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.8 (Windows/20061025)
In-Reply-To: <eqccdc$k89$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: w01iwt.pnet.ch
X-Original-Trace: 7 Feb 2007 12:53:28 +0200, w01iwt.pnet.ch
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9067
Date: 2007-02-07T12:53:27+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Maciej Sobczak schrieb:
> Martin Krischik wrote:
> 
>>> What I'm against is a GC "paradigm" that prevents me from having 
>>> deterministic "good bye" hooks for scoped lifetime. The problem is 
>>> that most GC-oriented languages I'm aware of do have this "issue".
>>
>> But isn't that exactly what "Unchecked_Deallocation" and "pragma 
>> Controlled" is all about? Has Ada - by your rationale - not got GC right?
> 
> By my rationale Ada and C++ got it perfectly right ([Limited_]Controlled 
> mess aside).
> 
> The only difference between them in this regard is that Ada explicitly 
> allows GC on the low level without requiring it (so that implementations 
> can ignore the whole idea) and that C++ is traditionally silent about 
> the concept altogether (so that implementations can provide it). ;-)

Only that C++ does not have pragma Controlled to switch the collector 
off. And Unchecked_Deallocation should deallocate even when a collector 
is present.

> (Note that GC will likely be formalized in the upcoming C++ standard.)

Which could solve the above.

> My criticism is targeted at those languages which bring GC to the top 
> level obstructing the visible part of the object model.

On my Weblogic course I could not stop shaking my head about all the 
problems which brings the "all is pointer" concept of Java.

Martin