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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,fd63afa4dc364b7e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-03-17 01:38:52 PST Path: nntp.stanford.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-236.5800-3.access.uk.worldonline.COM!not-for-mail From: "Nick Roberts" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Better support for garbage collection Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 13:18:15 -0000 Message-ID: <98qfgu$33un2$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> References: <98m938$2iod0$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> <87vgpc3gv0.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> <8766hc9m0m.fsf@deneb.enyo.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-236.5800-3.access.uk.worldonline.com (62.64.138.236) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 984662367 3275490 62.64.138.236 (16 [25716]) X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Xref: nntp.stanford.edu comp.lang.ada:91478 Date: 2001-03-15T13:18:15+00:00 List-Id: "Florian Weimer" wrote in message news:8766hc9m0m.fsf@deneb.enyo.de... > > >... Why don't typical Ada implementations (which > > > produce native code) support garbage collection? There seem to be > > > many reservations about garbage collections, so I think the priority > > > issue is to provide an implementation of garbage collection which > > > demonstrates that better garbage collection > > > > ...what? > > Oops. > > "is worth the additional complexity. Until now, implementors and > large scale users have shown little interest in any type of garbage > collection." You are perhaps right, and maybe this is a flag that I will find almost no-one saluting. But consider this: I believe GC facilities would add to the language's (or a particular implementation's) support of good software engineering principles, providing the GC were used in the kind of programs for which it is appropriate. Essentially, this is because GC removes the burden of storage management from the application programmer, so eliminating a notorious source of errors. This is what a lot of Ada's features are supposed to be about, isn't it? I suspect that if Ada had never had, for example, the automatic range checking implied by sub-ranging a basic type, Florian's argument could be applied just the same to someone trying introduce this feature at a later stage ("No-one uses it, so it isn't needed, and it wouldn't be worth the extra complexity, so nobody would ever implement it."). Ada would no doubt be a much simpler language to implement, if it didn't have all those nasty complex SE features. Of course it would! It would be C, then! -- Nick Roberts http://www.AdaOS.org