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=0.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,3498dd887729ed19
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Garbage Collection in Ada
Date: 1996/10/13
Message-ID: <dewar.845247229@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 189234929
references: <01bbb910$f1e73f60$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se>
 <199610132138291604607@dialup101-6-14.swipnet.se>
organization: New York University
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1996-10-13T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Lars says

"Cultural bias or even prejudice is the most likely reason IMHO. Not
technical reasons. On and off the same discussion comes up in the C++
community. Those that control C++ and those that control Ada simply
don't want GC :-("

That's nonsense I think. It's just a matter of market supply and demand.
Some Ada compilers (not many) have GC, most do not. If most Ada programmers
want GC, more compilers will have it. The various bogus reasons you give
for worrying about GC seem irrelevant to me.

Just one point, virtual origins are not a problem at all in a proper
garbage collector, only in approximate "conservative" ones, which are
not so conservative and are happy to remove blocks in use if virtual
orgins around. The technique of using virtual origins can perfectly
well be used in C (see the sources of gigi for an example of this use).