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: 1996/10/30 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 193306676 sender: news@organon.com (news) references: <199610181934142408603@dialup101-3-15.swipnet.se> organization: Organon Motives, Inc. newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-30T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article <32771A0A.32F6@ehs.ericsson.se> Jonas Nygren writes: > I don't understand this. Can storage pools replace automatic garbage > collection? How should one use storage pools to accomplish this? No, of course not. But you can, on an application specific basis, get reasonable forms of "real" GC. But it is tied to a specific pool and specific types attached to that pool. > To me GC solves the problem of deallocation when there are two or > more references to the same object. Without GC this is a difficult > problem to solve, specially so in very large programs, where you > have the problem of possible dangling pointers. Yeah, and? The point is if you can get complete control over the allocation and have a true and complete set of roots (depends on application) then you can do it. Just like implementation provided GC can in the general case. What's your point? > I have tried Java a bit and recommend it to NO-GC advocates, it is > rather refreshing not to have to think about deallocation. You > should try it. What makes you think Java is special here. Just try SmallTalk, Eiffel, Sather (conservative GC), any Lisp, etc. What's your point? /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com