Re: A comparison of Ada and Modula 3

[adaworks@netcom.com (AdaWorks)]

Kennel (mbk@jt3ws1.etd.ornl.gov) wrote:
: Robert Dewar (dewar@cs.nyu.edu) wrote:
: > T.E.D. asks regarding implementing GC in GNAT:

: > How tough could it be?  :-)

  In embedded real-time systems, automatic garbage collection can be
  a serious liability.  Ada, the language, must work consistently over
  a wide-range of applications.  Therefore, it is appropriate that GC
  not be intrinsic to the language.

  On the other hand, Ada 95 takes the very sensible approach of including
  a package for Storage Pool management, which, when used with another
  package, Ada.Finalization, allows the developer to carefully manage the
  garbage collection processs and even make it automatic when necessary
  to the design.

  Furthermore, the Ada general access type feature eliminates many of the
  issues associated with garbage collection one found in Ada 83 because
  of the rules related to accessibility and scope.  

  Langauges that consistently do automatic garbage collection will not 
  perform correctly in embedded, hard, real-time (HRTS) weapons systems.
  They work fine, though, for desk-top systems in which safety is not an
  issue.

  Richard Riehle
  adaworks@netcom.com
-- 

richard@adaworks.com
AdaWorks Software Engineering
Suite 27
2555 Park Boulevard
Palo Alto, CA 94306
(415) 328-1815
FAX  328-1112