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: 103376,9c0f2ad38cef26ed X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Garbage collection (was a spinoff of a spinoff of a GA diatribe) Date: 1996/10/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189921876 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <9610152135.AA13753@most> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <9610152135.AA13753@most> "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" writes: > And with composites, the provider of the data type has the complete freedom > of choice to extend a controlled type with GC, extend a controlled type > without GC, or not use a controlled type. This just isn't accurate. Sure, you can go a reasonable way with this. But finalization stuff just doesn't catch many typical cases and it is _way_ expensive. Also, you have to put in all the effort for something which would be directly useable. Actually, I've found that user defined storage pools are much more important in this context. > So, compared to the above, how big is the payoff of having GC imposed on > you by the implementation? Big. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com