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=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AC_FROM_MANY_DOTS,BAYES_00 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,1cf653444208df72 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2001-10-09 07:35:03 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!newsfeeds.belnet.be!news.belnet.be!psinet-eu-nl!psiuk-p4!uknet!psiuk-n!news.pace.co.uk!nh.pace.co.uk!not-for-mail From: "Marin David Condic" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: ada vs. cpp Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 10:25:05 -0400 Organization: Posted on a server owned by Pace Micro Technology plc Message-ID: <9pv1c4$2vp$1@nh.pace.co.uk> References: <9pgr68$7pu1@news.cis.okstate.edu> <9phnic$9g5$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <5fkv7.134136$w7.19988807@news02.optonline.net> <9pmpk00a53@drn.newsguy.com> <9puvdc$225$1@nh.pace.co.uk> <3BC30621.BDF74138@worldnet.att.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: dhcp-200-133.miami.pace.co.uk X-Trace: nh.pace.co.uk 1002637508 3065 136.170.200.133 (9 Oct 2001 14:25:08 GMT) X-Complaints-To: newsmaster@news.cam.pace.co.uk NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Oct 2001 14:25:08 GMT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200 Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:14018 Date: 2001-10-09T14:25:08+00:00 List-Id: 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" 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. >