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-Thread: 103376,b99897135d6631cc X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit 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: 25 Jun 2004 16:35:53 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: References: <40d69121$1_1@baen1673807.greenlnk.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.102.146.44 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1088206554 5508 127.0.0.1 (25 Jun 2004 23:35:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2004 23:35:54 +0000 (UTC) Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:1902 Date: 2004-06-25T16:35:53-07:00 List-Id: Stephen Leake wrote in message news:... > 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes: > > > Stephen Leake wrote in message news:... > > > Kilgallen@SpamCop.net (Larry Kilgallen) writes: > > > > > > > In article , 18k11tm001@sneakemail.com (Russ) writes: > > > > > > > > > Bingo. That's exactly what Ada should have. And it shouldn't take a > > > > > rocket scientist to figure that out. > > > > > > > > ACT says they have not really seen market demand from their customers, > > > > and some of them are presumably rocket scientists. > > > > > > Me, for one :). > > > > > > I prefer to manage memory according to the needs of my algorithms and > > > applications, rather than letting some unknown algorithm attempt to do > > > it for me. Ada lets me do this quite nicely. > > > > What's your point? > > My point is that _this_ "rocket scientist" reaches a different > conclusion than you do about the desirability of garbage collection. > > > Because you don't want automated memory management, nobody else > > should want it either? > > That's not exactly my argument, but it is my conclusion, if by > "automated memory management" you mean "garbage collection, as > provided by the JVM for example". > > The term "automated memory management" can mean many things, including > typical Ada use of the stack for local variables. So we need clearer > definitions before we go any farther. I don't know much about memory management or garbage collection, but I do know that it is considered a great benefit of Java and many other languages. Whatever Ada provides in this regard should be optional at the discretion of the *developer* (not the compiler vendor), and it should be at least as good as the GC in Java for those who choose to use it that way. > > What I'm suggesting would give you what you want and it would also > > give the desktop and web developers what they want. > > I'm suggesting that "garbage collection" is not what they _need_ > (different from what they _want_). Yes, of course, and a C programmer could just as well claim that you don't really need array bound checking. All you need is to be careful not to address your arrays out of bounds. I think you are missing a huge point here. The advantages of automatic memory management are that it is (1) convenient for the developer and (2) much more reliable, just as the automatic array bounds checking is more reliable than a developer's hand-rolled bounds checking. You may neither want or need it for your application, and you shouldn't be forced to use it, but the desktop and web developers should always have it available if they want it. They shouldn't be denied a valuable feature just because you don't want it. > > In other words, it would make Ada a more versatile language. > > Nope. Yup. Look at the amazing popularity of Java. I would venture to say that it is due, in large part, to Java's garbage collection. Java started out as a web language, and it has become a desktop application language too. Now it is so popular that it is starting to push Ada out of its niche in real-time systems. Once a language reaches a certain level of popularity, everyone wants to use it. Your attitude of not caring what desktop/web developers want is a sure-fire way to let Ada die a slow, agonizing death. > As many have pointed out, Ada the _langauge_ allows for garbage > collection, and some implementations have provided it (JGNAT in > particular). That has not lead to commercial success. So what has > changed, that you think it will lead to commercial success now? That's a bit like saying, "Hey, we threw a 60-yard touchdown pass and we still lost the game, so why should we waste our time trying to score touchdowns anymore?" I can't guarantee that GC (or equivalent) will make Ada more popular, but I *can* guarantee that Ada will *not* become more popular if it continues to ignore the needs of the vast majority of developers out there. > Ada provides better ways to manage memory, and programmers that take > the time to figure that out don't need traditional "garbage > collection". So I guess all those Canneige-Mellon and MIT professors who use Java are just simpletons. Hey, I agree that they should use Ada, but I'm not quite as arrogant as you in telling them what they need. > > Maybe you don't think that's wise, but if you don't, please don't > > complain about the fact that Java dwarfs Ada in popularity (and is > > now being adapted big-time for real-time use by the military). > > I've never "complained" about that. I'm disappointed in the waste of > my tax dollars, but that's nothing new :). If self-centered attitudes like yours prevail in the Ada community, I suggest you start getting used to a lot more of the same.