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,b307bd75c8071241
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: newbie Q: storage management
Date: 1997/05/03
Message-ID: <dewar.862663272@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 239106831
References: <5k5hif$7r5@bcrkh13.bnr.ca>
 <01bc54f6$09924480$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>



Nick says

<<However, I would assert that an Ada compiler which targets a desktop
computer should provide full reclamation, no matter how much extra memory
or time it costs. It seems just too impractical to me that it should do
otherwise.>>

Impractical for whom? A lot of people programming in C, C++, Pascal, etc
seem to manage fine without automatic garbage collection. yes of course
I agree that GC would be desirable, but the fact of the matter is that

(a) we certainly have not run into any customers who have even noted GC
as a major requirement, let alone something they would be willing to fund.

(b) we do not see that the major work in providing GC would begin to pay for
itself if we did it on a speculative basis.

Just because you want something does not mean that it is impractical for
someone else not to provide it at no cost :-)