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: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail From: Martin Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++,comp.programming Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:44:48 -0700 (PDT) Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <2009a75f-63e7-485e-9d9f-955e456578ed@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 86.152.141.171 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: posting.google.com 1248893088 31490 127.0.0.1 (29 Jul 2009 18:44:48 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 18:44:48 +0000 (UTC) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: h21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=86.152.141.171; posting-account=g4n69woAAACHKbpceNrvOhHWViIbdQ9G User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.1.1) Gecko/20090715 Firefox/3.0.10, Ant.com Toolbar 1.3,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.scheme:6171 comp.lang.ada:7422 comp.lang.functional:2526 comp.lang.c++:48547 comp.programming:12124 Date: 2009-07-29T11:44:48-07:00 List-Id: On Jul 29, 9:11=A0am, Ray Blaak wrote: > fft1976 writes: > > > =A0 =A0 =A0- Ada is best suited for large teams and/or critical softw= are, thus > > > it may be overkill for my work, OTH it could have anything I might > > > happen to need. > > Ada is fine as far as it goes, and there is a GNU Ada compiler which help= s a > lot. > > My problem with it is the lack of a garbage collection. That is just not > acceptable to me these days. If you manually allocate memory, then you pr= etty > much have memory bugs, it's as simple as that. There's little demand for GC from Ada users for a number of reasons: 1) You very rarely need to explicitly manage memory using Ada - there's a shed load of predefined containers should you need lists, vectors, set, etc. and you rarely need to dynamically allocate anything on a heap - there's just other ways to do it. 2) The traditional non-deterministic nature of when and for how long a GC was going to run ruled it out for a lot of Ada systems. Real-time Java (see Aonix's PERC) seems to have got round the non- deterministic problems but that still doesn't mean there will be an similar extension to Ada, as there are still ways to do it would recourse to pointers et al. > It's better than C/C++ for sure, but I remember plenty of memory exceptio= ns all > the same. > > Also, I find the OO notation a little quirky. Obj.Method is now supported for classes. > > Ada is also 2x slower, but less suitable for your purposes (verbose, > > less memory safe than OCaml, free compilers produce GPL-only code) > > I am pretty sure the GPL-only thing is not true. FSF versions allow you to produce proprietary programs, GNAT GPL 200x versions do not. Cheers -- Martin