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: 103376,21960280f1d61e84 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: in defense of GC References: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net> <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net> <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net> <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net> <1pzx3y7d2pide.y744copm0ejb$.dlg@40tude.net> <1aqj1657qjei9.1umdok28t0trz$.dlg@40tude.net> <0kk5yxcyhq.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> From: Markus E Leypold Organization: N/A Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:57:57 +0100 Message-ID: User-Agent: Some cool user agent (SCUG) Cancel-Lock: sha1:iDGh9l0eJbFtFfRYQr9MRL71yjE= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-Host: 88.74.38.71 X-Trace: news.arcor-ip.de 1170690774 88.74.38.71 (5 Feb 2007 16:52:54 +0200) X-Complaints-To: abuse@arcor-ip.de Path: g2news2.google.com!news1.google.com!news4.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!newsfeed01.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!newsfeed.arcor-ip.de!news.arcor-ip.de!not-for-mail Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9003 Date: 2007-02-05T16:57:57+01:00 List-Id: Markus E Leypold writes: > Hi Dmitry, > > I've just been reconsider this thread, which, in my news reader has > become quite unmanageable. I've written (or at list tried to hint at) > in another response that I somehow doubt the sense in continuing this > discussion. I'd like to reinforce that for a last time. > > E.g. you write some hardly understandable statement that somehow mixes > up memory live times with visibility and scoping (which already made > me doubt you have any idea what "encapsulation" really means) ..., > > >> "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > >> > The second issue is less and less relevant as Randy pointed out. The first >> > issue is always relevant. It is a good design to consider where an object >> > exists. GC [and upward closures] is an attitude of making everything >> > potentially global. In fact it is worse than just global. It is "I don't >> > know where I need that damn thing." > > but what is worse, you get refuted by Ray Blake, ... > >> GC does not affect visibility or scoping. That is an orthogonal issue, and >> still quite properly under the control of the programmer. Upward closures do >> not make an object more global unless the closure explicitly exposes the >> object for external use. > > .. and in more word, but not as well formulated, by me. But do we get > any feedback on that? No, instead we just continue the discussion with > some other quirky notion if yours which until then was a side issue. => of yours. Sorry. > >>> I am a long proponent of procedural types for Ada. Now consider. A >>> procedure is a limited object. Limited objects can be returned in Ada 2005. >>> What else you need? [Note, this is still not an upward closure, I am >>> opposing.] > >>> I certainly prefer OO solution because it explicitly maintains the context >>> of the operation. It is easier to understand for the reader and it easier >>> to maintain. > > And similar things happen in all sub-threads spawned by you or in > which you participate. > > Does it make sense under the circumstances to continue the discussion? > I don't think so. > > And I fear to become a crank myself but just arguing OT (!!) notions in c.l.a. > (and that includes my excursions into GC, FP and typesystems). > > So I'm calling quits to this discussion (at least as far as my > participation goes). > > Regards -- Markus