Re: Languages don't matter. A mathematical refutation

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On Thu, 09 Apr 2015 10:55:38 +0200, Georg Bauhaus wrote:

> On 08.04.15 23:16, Randy Brukardt wrote:
>> That's what I call "trained ape" programming. It's so easy, anyone can do
>> it, so anyone does, and we get the mounds of crapware out there that barely
>> works and steals your identity at the same time. Bah-humbug.;-)
> 
> Suppose
> 
> (1) there exists an implementation of Ada that supports automatic
> memory management(*), and
> 
> (2) that doing all of the following becomes really easy:
> - to specify a pool for objects that are handled automatically,
> - to explain what that means, and
> - to pick a pool that exists and is portable (sort of).
> 
> Then, I think, these conditions will describe something one might
> have come to expect of Ada: it keeps promises (to be GC-able) and
> makes everything explicit in source.
> 
> In addition, the properties of the collector and how it affects the
> program might be much more visible and manageable than in many other
> main stream languages.
> 
> (Or else, at least provide more efficient, more predictable containers
> based on contracts. ;-)

And the smiley means? You certainly know that there is no way to contract
[*] GC.

GC is non-functional and unrelated to the program behavior, which is
another way to explain why GC is neither low nor high level. It is
non-existent.

--------------------
* True or false contracts equally.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de