From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony)
Subject: Re: Garbage Collection vs. the DSA
Date: 1996/10/22
Date: 1996-10-22T00:00:00+00:00 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <JSA.96Oct22154903@alexandria> (raw)
In-Reply-To: 9610211437.AA06861@most
In article <9610211437.AA06861@most> "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" <wwgrol@PSESERV3.FW.HAC.COM> writes:
> > What makes you think any interest ... if the DSA HAD NOT BEEN INCLUDED?
>
> Forget the dollars, you crass materialist! :-)
The point is, if the DSA had not been in the RM, ACT would not have a
DSA and so they would not have those $$ coming from attacted _new_ Ada
users.
> Although both are optional, the DSA IS specified and GC isn't--because
> a significant contingent of designers and/or reviewers believed DSA was
> important, while GC could not mobilize enough support to get in.
That's the "too in-bred team" problem already mentioned.
> (The same could be said for programmer-controlled GC, i.e.,
> Finalization, vs. transparent language-controlled GC.)
Finalization is not GC. Finalization is an othogonal issue, which
happens to be hacked for MM in certain circumstances some programmers.
/Jon
--
Jon Anthony
Organon Motives, Inc.
Belmont, MA 02178
617.484.3383
jsa@organon.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~1996-10-22 0:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
1996-10-21 0:00 Garbage Collection vs. the DSA W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)
1996-10-22 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony [this message]
1996-10-23 0:00 ` Robert Dewar
1996-10-23 0:00 ` Jon S Anthony
replies disabled
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox