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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,3ccb707f4c91a5f2 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Java vs Ada 95 (Was Re: Once again, Ada absent from DoD SBIR solicitation) Date: 1996/10/15 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 189681474 references: <325BC3B3.41C6@hso.link.com> <325D7F9B.2A8B@gte.net> <325FF8D0.6660@io.com> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-15T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Eachs says " More of a confirmation if anything... The result of other decisions was that Ada 95 did not require GC, but it did require all compilers to support an unbounded string type that is (implicitly) required to be garbage collecting (see A.4.5(88)). Most of us considered this to be a good trade: no distributed overhead, and the one type where GC was necessary provided with GC." Well I am not sure I agree, the type Unbounded String is typically implemented using a controlled type with a finalization routine that frees it, but this does not mean that all unreachable unbounded strings are in fact collected, becuase they may well be referenced from other structures that are themselves not collected.