Re: memory leakages with Ada?

["Pat Rogers" <progers@classwide.com>]

"John McCabe" <john.mccabe@emrad.ns.com> wrote in message
news:3c91bfa3.1987537@news.demon.co.uk...
> On Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:12:21 -0500, "Marin David Condic"
> <dont.bother.mcondic.auntie.spam@[acm.org> wrote:
>
> >In comparing Ada to C on this there are two observations: One is that Ada
> >provides a different model for dynamic allocation than does C that includes,
> >among other things, a lot more checks/safety features to minimize the
> >possibility of lost memory. (Still, the standard doesn't require garbage
> >collection so you can still leak memory if you mess things up.) It isn't
> >impossible to leak memory in Ada - just less likely.
>
> One of the things I've found recently, since starting to use C++ more,
> is that Ada.UncheckedDeallocation is so much nicer than 'delete' as it
> returns you a nice, null pointer! 'delete' in C++ appears to remove
> the allocated block, but leave your pointer pointing to where it used
> to be!

Although there are several things I really like about C++, one of the things
that I find shocking is that the programmer must remember to use a very slightly
different syntax when calling delete on an allocated array, and that the other
syntax will also compile and run -- and at the very least leak.  (I understand
the reason for this, don't bother to explain why; it still stinks!)  That isn't
the only such example, of course, but one that I find amazing.

For example, the following is perfectly legal and wrong :

char* p = new char[n];
delete p;

I have to remember to say:

delete[] p;


I'm not saying Ada is perfect, so let's nobody start the language wars please,
but Ada is clearly better in this regard.

---
Patrick Rogers                       Consulting and Training in:
http://www.classwide.com          Real-Time/OO Languages
progers@classwide.com               Hard Deadline Schedulability Analysis
(281)648-3165                                 Software Fault Tolerance