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: 103376,3498dd887729ed19 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: kst@thomsoft.com (Keith Thompson) Subject: Re: Garbage Collection in Ada Date: 1996/10/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189669033 sender: news@thomsoft.com (USENET News Admin @flash) x-nntp-posting-host: pulsar references: <01bbb910$f1e73f60$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se> <199610132138291604607@dialup101-6-14.swipnet.se> organization: Thomson Software Products, San Diego, CA, USA newsgroups: comp.lang.ada originator: kst@pulsar Date: 1996-10-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: It occurs to me that we may be approaching the whole question of garbage collection in Ada from the wrong direction. I think we've established the following: 1. The Ada language definition allows but does not require GC. In fact, the designers of the language went to considerable pains to make sure that it does allow GC, even to the point of having a language-defined pragma to control it (pragma Controlled). 2. Implementing GC in Ada would be a substantial amount of work, but it's by no means impossible. 3. Few, if any, Ada vendors have actually implemented GC simply because few, if any, paying customers have asked for it. It simply hasn't been a high priority. Nevertheless, there's been a great deal of discussion here and elsewhere to the effect that GC is A Good Thing. Several other language implementations provide GC, and many of their users don't know how they could get along without it. Maybe the real problem is that there's a market out there that we aren't reaching. -- Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst@thomsoft.com <*> TeleSoft^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Alsys^H^H^H^H^H Thomson Software Products 10251 Vista Sorrento Parkway, Suite 300, San Diego, CA, USA, 92121-2706 FIJAGDWOL