Re: ada vs. cpp

["Marin David Condic" <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org>]

It would be interesting to see *some* implementations that provided garbage
collection. If for no other reason than to be able to compare overhead for
programs/algorithms with/without GC. I think we are in agreement that it
should not be made mandatory by the language standard.

I believe I recall posts from language vendors whenever the issue of GC
comes up to the efect that while there appears to be some casual interest in
GC, nobody seems to want it so bad that it gets moved to the top of their
priority lists. Maybe people want it more as an intellectual curiosity, but
it appears it isn't essential for getting most jobs done.

Do you think there might be some body of potential Ada users out there who
would be enticed to use Ada if it had an implementation with garbage
collection? Just wondering if there might be some unexplored demand out
there...

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"James Rogers" <jimmaureenrogers@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:3BC30621.BDF74138@worldnet.att.net...
> Marin David Condic wrote:
> > As for GC - I'd rather leave that implementation defined. Ada would lose
a
> > lot of usefulness in embedded/realtime work if it was mandatory that GC
be
> > in it. As it stands, an implementation *could* provide GC if there was a
> > demand for it. So far, most users aren't screaming for it.
> >
>
> I would, however, like to see some publicly available GC
> implementations for Ada.
>