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: 103376,9c0f2ad38cef26ed,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Garbage collection (was a spinoff of a spinoff of a GA diatribe) Date: 1996/10/15 Message-ID: <9610152135.AA13753@most>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189716439 sender: Ada programming language comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: It seems to me that auto-GC is no longer worth arguing about with regard to Ada. Stack objects are collected as a side effect of the call stack mechanism. Implementations that transparently put "stack" variables on the heap usually automatically deallocate at end of scope. Explicit use of the heap for non-composite objects is not often done--why would you? And with composites, the provider of the data type has the complete freedom of choice to extend a controlled type with GC, extend a controlled type without GC, or not use a controlled type. So, compared to the above, how big is the payoff of having GC imposed on you by the implementation? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) Office: 219-429-4923 Hughes Defense Communications (MS 10-40) Home: 219-471-7206 Fort Wayne, IN 46808 (Unix): wwgrol@pseserv3.fw.hac.com ---------------------------------------------------------------------------