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: 2001-03-16 19:42:09 PST Path: supernews.google.com!sn-xit-03!supernews.com!news-feed.riddles.org.uk!skynet.be!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!ppp-1-63.5800-11.access.uk.worldonline.COM!not-for-mail From: "Nick Roberts" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Better support for garbage collection Date: Sat, 17 Mar 2001 02:30:19 -0000 Message-ID: <98umc6$39coj$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> References: <98m938$2iod0$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de><98pgs1$32up7$1@ID-25716.news.dfncis.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-1-63.5800-11.access.uk.worldonline.com (62.64.178.63) X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 984800455 3453715 62.64.178.63 (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: supernews.google.com comp.lang.ada:5792 Date: 2001-03-17T02:30:19+00:00 List-Id: "Robert A Duff" wrote in message news:wcck85pr56b.fsf@world.std.com... > > In fact, I think part of the reason GC didn't catch on for many years > (Java is really the first popular GC'ed language) is the overblown > claims of some GC zealots. Java? What about BASIC? Good old Microsoft BASIC (for the Z80 -- remember those?), that fitted into 8K ROM, had GC, as did a variety of other BASICs (some of them even tinier). And they were pretty popular for a period. I think your statement might upset a lot of LISP enthusiasts, too. (Not to mention Smalltalk, Prolog, xBASE, and probably many others ;-) > > > Memory leaks are indeed annoying. GC can help a lot. But it doesn't > > > completely cure the problem -- you still have to use your brain when > > > writing programs. I've seen memory leaks in GC'ed programs. > > > > Static typing doesn't cure bugs either. > > Right, but there are fewer zealots making *that* claim. Maybe not in so many words, but actually there are a lot of people who claim that a static typing system causes more trouble than it is worth. I am on this side of that particular fence, but I see their point (e.g. it can reduce the size of the source code by several times, which in itself, it could be claimed, improves readability). > > My worry about GC in Ada would be that the bugs caused by the interaction > > of GC and unsafe features would be difficult. > > I think I've heard Robert Dewar express that attitude (ie, perhaps GC is > inappropriate in a language that also has unsafe features). Actually, I think, with a bit of care, it is possible to design a (perfectly good) GC system that defends quite effectively against the worst effects of 'damage'. I think, in the end, I will take the advice of both Brian and Bob, and simply implement GC myself (in my own compiler which I'm writing for AdaOS). I just thought it would be preferable to have a widely agreed framework within which to design it first. -- Nick Roberts http://www.AdaOS.org