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: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) Subject: Re: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation) Date: 1996/10/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189683491 references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> organization: The Mitre Corp., Bedford, MA. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article 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...