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: 103376,3498dd887729ed19 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) Subject: Re: Garbage Collection in Ada Date: 1996/10/17 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 190114518 references: <01bbb910$f1e73f60$829d6482@joy.ericsson.se> <199610132138291604607@dialup101-6-14.swipnet.se> <1996Oct13.194807.1@eisner> organization: New York University newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1996-10-17T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: "Fair enough. But then, I find it hard to believe that implmementing all the annexes had that level of payback either. Except for the fact that you can claim to fully support the entire RM (another good reason why GC annex may have been nice :-). Think about it, for example, the DSA is a fine and wonderful thing but I can get everything it offers in commercially available CORBA based ORBs supporting Ada95. Not so a GC...)" Nope, that is wrong, we see clear evidence (real $$ coming in!) of significant commercial interest in the distribution annex. We are not implementing it for our own amusement, or because we hope people might be interested. The original work was kicked off by a large company providing resources, and since then, other serious big customers have been very interested (interest = $$$, not CLA posts) in this feature! P.S. Jon is definitely a customer, my comment about it often being the case that people are looking for something they can use free was not meant to imply otherwise :-) Of course he is NOT an example of someone not using Ada because it does not have GC. Now if Jon said he were switching all his development from Ada to Java solely because Java had GC, that would be interesting, or at least it would be interesting if it were a trend!