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: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again,
 Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation)
Date: 1996/10/16
Message-ID: <JSA.96Oct16171747@alexandria>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 189909146
sender: news@organon.com (news)
references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com>
 <Dz2B9H.9HD.0.-s@inmet.camb.inmet.com>
organization: Organon Motives, Inc.
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-16T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


In article <EACHUS.96Oct15141831@spectre.mitre.org> eachus@spectre.mitre.org (Robert I. Eachus) writes:

>   > 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.

Huh?  No one is suggesting it be required.  And the string thing is
the "one type where GC was necessary"???  Typically the types in need
of GC will be USER DEFINED.

/Jon
-- 
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com