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-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: fac41,15edb893ef79e231
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: f4fd2,23202754c9ce78dd
X-Google-Attributes: gidf4fd2,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,15edb893ef79e231
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: 114809,15edb893ef79e231
X-Google-Attributes: gid114809,public
X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-01-23 09:45:18 PST
Path: 
 archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!headwall.stanford.edu!hub1.nntpserver.com!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-koe1.dfn.de!RRZ.Uni-Koeln.DE!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail
From: Georg Bauhaus <sb463ba@l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.smalltalk
Subject: Re: True faiths ( was Re: The true faith )
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:45:17 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: GMUGHDU
Message-ID: <a2msrd$2eq$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
References: <B85AB00A.3603%verec@mac.com>
   <gat-1001021515510001@192.168.1.50>
 <76be8851.0201101909.9db0718@posting.google.com>
 <gat-1101020950400001@eglaptop.jpl.nasa.gov>
 <9jtu3u8cq92b05j47uat3412tok6hqu1ki@4ax.com> <3C3F8689.377A9F0F@brising.com>
 <u42v1pnq2oak8f@corp.supernews.com> <3219936759616091@naggum.net>
 <m2advh9oz5.fsf@enfocus.be> <3C483CE7.D61D1BF@removeme.gst.com>
 <7302e4fa4a.simonwillcocks@RiscPC.enterprise.net> <3C4D9B03.60803@mail.com>
 <bruce-28A01B.10594823012002@news.paradise.net.nz>
NNTP-Posting-Host: l1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de
X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1011807917 2522 134.91.4.34 (23 Jan 2002
 17:45:17 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 17:45:17 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00
 (9000/800))
Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.lisp:25089 comp.lang.ada:19249
 comp.lang.eiffel:5510 comp.lang.smalltalk:18535
Date: 2002-01-23T17:45:17+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In comp.lang.ada Bruce Hoult <bruce@hoult.org> wrote:

 
: A large proportion [...ownership/deleting]
    ^^^^^
 
: With GC available, objects are seldom copied 
                                 ^^^^^^
 
Yes, but what does frequency of an operation say about the importance
of the availability of the respective copying operation?

When an object has to be backed up (transaction, retransmission,
adventurous options of changing its state with backtracking,
recursively splitting processing to different processors/memories,
saving to files, ...), another pointer to serve the manipulation
is essentially useless, and GC or not GC is simply not the point.

For a concrete language example, why are there expanded objects in
Eiffel? And how does this relate to GC, and multitasking?

(I'm asking myself these questions to get a clear picture,
they are not merly rhetorical.)

Georg