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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,5cb36983754f64da
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2004-04-03 03:52:12 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsrout1.ntli.net!news.ntli.net!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsmm00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news.t-online.com!not-for-mail
From: Martin Krischik <krischik@users.sourceforge.net>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping
 language)
Date: Sat, 03 Apr 2004 13:51:29 +0200
Organization: AdaCL
Message-ID: <6803831.c4KqqVc08g@linux1.krischik.com>
References: <20040206174017.7E84F4C4114@lovelace.ada-france.org>
 <mailman.3.1076142690.295.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <m3isij11u4.fsf_-_@insalien.org>
 <54759e7e.0402071124.322ea376@posting.google.com>
 <m3smhmz2fo.fsf@insalien.org> <rxmbc.53$bh.32@lakeread02>
 <pan.2004.04.02.23.55.20.921881@email.ro> <87r7v5zao0.fsf@insalien.org>
Reply-To: krischik@users.sourceforge.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
X-Trace: news.t-online.com 1080993103 05 24450 +nFRGrbLRELpptn 040403 11:51:43
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@t-online.de
X-ID: X07eI-ZboexEDq26bhSAi7wSW-gkoADNNjCBAxsweiaAz5t0vfhy8d
User-Agent: KNode/0.7.7
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:6720
Date: 2004-04-03T13:51:29+02:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Ludovic Brenta wrote:

> David Starner writes:
>> On Fri, 02 Apr 2004 18:18:42 -0500, Beth Bruzan wrote:
>> > However, with proper design
>> > and implementation, Ada does not need garbage collection,
>> 
>> And with proper design and implementation, C does not need bounds
>> checking. If your allocation and deallocation is trivial, you don't
>> need garbage collection; but if you look at something like GCC, they
>> implemented garbage collection in C because it was too much work to
>> keep track of the allocations. I have no doubt they would have done
>> the same thing in Ada.
> 
> This turned out not to work that well; there have been large
> performance and memory footprint concerns in GCC because of GC.  Linus
> Torvalds recommends reference counting as a better, more predictable
> and more efficient mechanism.

True, but for reference counting everybody has to play by the rules. I can
see that in Ada since Ada programmers know that 'Access /= 'Address. But
most C programmers think that (void*) == (int*) == (int) == (long). Not
true of corse - those who still remember the ix86 architecture for x < 3
will know.

Mind you, for Ada programers there is a pitfall as well since access /=
access all.

Wich reminds me. Does anybody know what - should - happen when:

Access_X is access X;
All_X is access all X;

for Access_X'Pool use Access_Pool;
for All_X'Pool use All_Pool;

Some_X : Access_X := new X;
Another_X : All_X := Some_X;

function Deallocate is new Unchecked_Deallocation (X, All_X);

begin
    Deallocate (Another_X);
end;

With Regards

Martin.

-- 
mailto://krischik@users.sourceforge.net
http://www.ada.krischik.com