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,b307bd75c8071241 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: jsa@alexandria (Jon S Anthony) Subject: Re: newbie Q: storage management Date: 1997/05/03 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 239229920 Distribution: world References: <5k5hif$7r5@bcrkh13.bnr.ca> <336754A0.41C6@magellan.bgm.link.com> <336A065B.41C6@magellan.bgm.link.com> Organization: PSI Public Usenet Link Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1997-05-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) writes: > In fact the viability of garbage collection in a language at the level > of Ada is far from established. We have no good proof by example that > it is feasible. Real java compilers, as opposed to safe Java Why doesn't Eiffel count as such? Or do you consider it significantly higher level than Ada? Or that it is not a successful example? What would count as success? > that if you have a language that provides system level features that > let you mess at a low level, it is all too easy to cause damage > to critical structures that GC depends on, and bugs caused in this > way can be diabolical to track down. True. But Eiffel navigates these treacherous waters in directly supporting C interaction even with the GC on. Of course, you could believe (see above) that Eiffel is simply a failure here. > Certainly no one could have suggested removing the explicit deallocation > from Ada 95, that would have been a truly silly suggestion, which would > not have been given 2 seconds of attention. Absolutely. /Jon -- Jon Anthony Organon Motives, Inc. Belmont, MA 02178 617.484.3383 jsa@organon.com