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,a3c78c7d84418222 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: Garbage Collection vs. the DSA Date: 1996/10/22 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 191332059 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <9610211437.AA06861@most> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-22T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <9610211437.AA06861@most> "W. Wesley Groleau (Wes)" 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