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,a3c78c7d84418222,start X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" Subject: Garbage Collection vs. the DSA Date: 1996/10/21 Message-ID: <9610211437.AA06861@most>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 191149332 sender: Ada programming language comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-21T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: -- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------