From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" <wwgrol@PSESERV3.FW.HAC.COM>
Subject: Garbage Collection vs. the DSA
Date: 1996/10/21
Date: 1996-10-21T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9610211437.AA06861@most> (raw)
--
R. Dewar says:
> ... clear evidence (real $$ coming in) of ... interest in the [DSA]
J. Anthony gasps:
> What makes you think any interest ... if the DSA HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED?
Forget the dollars, you crass materialist! :-)
Although both are optional, the DSA IS specified and GC isn't--because
a significant contingent of designers and/or reviewers believed DSA was
important, while GC could not mobilize enough support to get in. (The
same could be said for programmer-controlled GC, i.e., Finalization, vs.
transparent language-controlled GC.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
next reply other threads:[~1996-10-21 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-10-21 0:00 W. Wesley Groleau (Wes) [this message]
1996-10-22 0:00 ` Garbage Collection vs. the DSA Jon S Anthony
1996-10-23 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
1996-10-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox