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,FREEMAIL_FROM autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,b99897135d6631cc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews2.google.com!not-for-mail From: 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: memory management and productivity Date: 23 Jun 2004 23:40:30 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <40d69121$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.194.87.148 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1088059230 16759 127.0.0.1 (24 Jun 2004 06:40:30 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 06:40:30 +0000 (UTC) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1843 Date: 2004-06-23T23:40:30-07:00 List-Id: Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) wrote in message news:... > In article , 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes: > > > The rocket scientists probably don't need or want automated memory > > management for their real-time applications, but desktop application > > developers probably do. Why not make them both happy? > > > > Oh, the desktop developers are not "demanding" it? Of course they > > aren't, because they aren't using Ada in the first place. And why > > aren't they using Ada? Perhaps in part because it doesn't have GC. > > They are off using Smalltalk ? > > Why would they be using that rather than using the "build it yourself" > form of garbage collection discussed here, all the time complaining > that it was not built in. > > > Why wait for your current customers to "demand" something before > > adding a basic feature that could turn *potential* customers into > > *actual* customers? I'm afraid that such short-sighted views will only > > perpetuate the demise of Ada. > > I have the feeling you don't have experience in marketing or overall > company finance. No, I don't. But it seems to me that Ada has a golden opportunity here to provide a clear advantage over both C++ and Java -- and it is declining. C++ has no garbage collection, and development time is two to three times greater as a result (not to mention memory leaks all over the place). Java has GC, but everyone is working overtime to make it work for real time. The obvious solution is to have GC available on demand -- but *optional* at the discretion of the developer. You Ada enthusiasts tell me that the Ada standard "allows" GC but does not require it to be available. Well, as an engineer who would like to promote Ada, I honestly don't know what that means. Does Ada have standard automated memory management or doesn't it? Can I count on it, or can't I? If not, what good is it to me? Maybe you think I am just too simple minded. Well, maybe I am. But so are a lot of other people, including many of the decision-making managers you guys are so fond of. When they compare languages (if they do), one thing they do is to set up a list of check boxes, and one is for GC. As a rule of thumb, a check beats a question mark every time.