Re: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)

[eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus)]

In article <dewar.845340573@merv> dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes:

  > In this particular case, the feeling was that including GC in the IS
  > annex would make the annex too difficult to implement, which, since
  > it is optional, might be counter  productive.

  > There could have been an annex for GC, but no one was interested enough
  > to suggest that, and if they had, I don't think it would have interested
  > people enough to survive.

  > Just because you want something in Ada and not many other people do does
  > not mean the majority is wrong and you are right :-)

    More of a confirmation if anything...  The result of other
decisions was that Ada 95 did not require GC, but it did require all
compilers to support an unbounded string type that is (implicitly)
required to be garbage collecting (see A.4.5(88)).  Most of us
considered this to be a good trade: no distributed overhead, and the
one type where GC was necessary provided with GC.

--

					Robert I. Eachus

with Standard_Disclaimer;
use  Standard_Disclaimer;
function Message (Text: in Clever_Ideas) return Better_Ideas is...