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: fac41,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
X-Google-Thread: f43e6,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gidf43e6,public
X-Google-Thread: 1108a1,9a0ff0bffdf63657
X-Google-Attributes: gid1108a1,public
X-Google-Thread: 103376,4b06f8f15f01a568
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: dewar@merv.cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar)
Subject: Re: Why C++ is successful
Date: 1998/08/06
Message-ID: <dewar.902415458@merv>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 378529479
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.nyu.edu
X-Trace: news.nyu.edu 902415516 27945 (None) 128.122.140.58
Organization: New York University
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.object,comp.software-eng,comp.lang.ada
Date: 1998-08-06T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Lars says

<<Are you saying tht GC would introduce a larger risk for incorrect
programs than exceptions? If so, why?
>>

Most certainly! GC introduces a huge risk for incorrect programs. Garbage
collectors assume that the pointer structure of a program is correct. If
it is corruptede, garbage collectors can cause horrible havoc. Indeed this
havoc often only shows up after several mark-and-sweep type cycles of the
GC, and it can be almost impossible to track them down

(said from horrible experiences in implementing general GC!)