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: 103376,2925b133078d1557 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff) Subject: Re: Flexible Strings (was Equality operator...) Date: 1997/05/07 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 240005280 References: <9704301422.AA07755@most> <5kocg6$hln@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <53F35740C6EF076C.14BEEF8227919F71.39E2B6FED1F30314@library-proxy.airnews.net> Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-07T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <53F35740C6EF076C.14BEEF8227919F71.39E2B6FED1F30314@library-proxy.airnews.net>, Kevin Cline wrote: >I was a member of ANSI X3H3 (PHIGS) for two years. I read the Ada'83 standard >cover to cover. I've read most of the C++ DWP. Perhaps there is not a lot of >difference in theory between Ada and C storage management, but there is a huge >practical difference. In C or C++, the application programmer can take >complete control of the allocation process in a couple of ways. In C++, new >and delete can be redefined globally or on a class-by-class basis. >Additionally, the compiler vendor's implementation of malloc and free can be >replaced with one more carefully tuned to the particular application. >Although not mandated by the standard, almost all C compilers do link malloc >and free from their run-time library, and replacement implementations can be >linked instead. Few Ada compilation systems are so open. What you say may be true of Ada 83, but Ada 95 allows user-defined storage pools. You can use whatever allocation strategy you like. This is a required feature of all Ada compilers. It much more flexible than globally replacing malloc, because you get control on a per-access-type basis. - Bob