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: 103376,2a993df02f6d82f1 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Samuel Mize Subject: Re: More questions... Date: 1999/03/09 Message-ID: <7c40uu$14lu@news3.newsguy.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 453126691 References: <7bvb4j$lt0$1@remarQ.com> Organization: ImagiNet Communications, Ltd. User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-981002 ("Phobia") (UNIX) (AIX/3-2) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-03-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Michael Young wrote: > 2) Robert Dewar stated some time ago that finalize should be used > sparingly because of performance concerns. ... > Destructors in C++ are simply > normal function calls. Are controlled types significantly different from > other types to make this unrealistic? Was he saying that Finalize should be used sparingly compared to C++ destructors? I would assume that he was saying it should not be used unless needed, because it adds a function call at every assignment statement, and when the variable goes out of scope. Ada is often used in time-critical embedded systems, where needless procedure-call overhead may be a significant cost. OTOH, when you assign a new value to an object with a destructor, does C++ call the destructor before assigning the new value? Or is that even a meaningful question for C++? Best, Sam Mize -- Samuel Mize -- smize@imagin.net (home email) -- Team Ada Fight Spam: see http://www.cauce.org/ \\\ Smert Spamonam