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: 103376,3498dd887729ed19 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Garbage Collection in Ada Date: 1996/10/16 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189952121 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <01bbb910$f1e73f60$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-16T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article kst@thomsoft.com (Keith Thompson) writes: > It occurs to me that we may be approaching the whole question of garbage > collection in Ada from the wrong direction. > > I think we've established the following: > > 1. The Ada language definition allows but does not require GC. In fact, > the designers of the language went to considerable pains to make sure > that it does allow GC, even to the point of having a language-defined > pragma to control it (pragma Controlled). > > 2. Implementing GC in Ada would be a substantial amount of work, but it's > by no means impossible. > > 3. Few, if any, Ada vendors have actually implemented GC simply because > few, if any, paying customers have asked for it. It simply hasn't > been a high priority. > > Nevertheless, there's been a great deal of discussion here and > elsewhere to the effect that GC is A Good Thing. Several other language > implementations provide GC, and many of their users don't know how they > could get along without it. > > Maybe the real problem is that there's a market out there that we aren't > reaching. You have hit the nail on the head, IMO. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com