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,dab7d920e4340f12 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: C is 'better' than Ada because... Date: 1996/08/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 174610976 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <3212F127.41C67EA6@mailgw.sanders.lockheed.com> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-08-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <4v14u7$hkl@newsbf02.news.aol.com> johnherro@aol.com (John Herro) writes: > Ada *IS* more restrictive, but the restrictions help prevent > errors. In Ada you *cannot* produce a dangling reference, unless > you deliberately use Unchecked_Access or Unchecked_Deallocation. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Well, without GC, it is highly likely you are going to be using UD (or not using the heap or leaking). Sure, there are cases where user defined finalization will greatly localize the use of UD and prevent errors of its omission. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. 1 Williston Road, Suite 4 Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com