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: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: Martin Dowie <martin@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful
Date: 1998/08/06
Message-ID: <AumYbBAftgy1EwfY@dowie-cs.demon.co.uk>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 378608815
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207
References: <dewar.902414782@merv>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 902433673 nnrp-04:29084 NO-IDENT
 dowie-cs.demon.co.uk:193.237.34.207
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <dewar.902414782@merv>, Robert Dewar <dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu>
writes
>
>Jay said
>
><<The mismanagement is that the DOD did not push Ada beyond the immediate
>requirements of defense embedded systems.  Its a chicken or the egg
>situation:  You can't portably rely on GC until a good number of compilers
>support it, so nobody uses it and thus there is no pressing demand for it.
>This is where management needs to step in and break the cycle.
>>>
another reason GC is not used/wanted is that in many embedded systems
the last thing you want is some autonomous GC being scheduled just when
you're in the tight-for-time bit of the code...

-- 
Martin Dowie