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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!news2.glorb.com!news.enother.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!backlog2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.brightview.co.uk!news.brightview.co.uk.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:08:43 -0500 From: Jon Harrop Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.programming Followup-To: comp.programming Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:18:35 +0100 References: <2009a75f-63e7-485e-9d9f-955e456578ed@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> Organization: Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. User-Agent: KNode/0.10.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Message-ID: X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-l2j5RHi0JJcJsLk+FUchwMCX0aYOotzsw1R71yz20kph03RDk/qLsfmJSmlzgnO1T3UsqNT9m5ItZdJ!snNbOKEv6zK8/kbvCapZxRayrmdpXOzTQnGMyn379MWvBWw9xsNzEGdSP5GWIyfaIvG4Pmdb1Phm!f85C2e8z2RZAOJIkFwnHfU/O X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.39 Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.scheme:6176 comp.lang.ada:7427 comp.lang.c++:48563 comp.programming:12128 Date: 2009-07-29T22:18:35+01:00 List-Id: Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote: > There are relationships between the object and its clients around the > program which are far more complex and beyond "you die before me", the > only relationship maintained by GC. That is incorrect. You are describing reference counting. > The point is, relationships between objects is key a part of OO design. To > leave that to GC in hope that it will somehow sort out things is > irresponsible. It did not, does not and it will not do. Note that you were long since disproven by the JVM and CLR. >> Why not save yourself the trouble and use a real GC, then? > > Sure, by using scoped objects whenever possible. That is 90% of all cases. Functional programming languages are trivial counter examples. Scope alone cannot even support first-class lexical closures. -- Dr Jon D Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd. http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?u