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=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,21960280f1d61e84
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news3.google.com!newsfeed2.dallas1.level3.net!news.level3.com!newsfeed-00.mathworks.com!kanaga.switch.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!switch.ch!cernne03.cern.ch!not-for-mail
From: Maciej Sobczak <no.spam@no.spam.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: GC in Ada
Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 12:15:55 +0100
Organization: CERN News
Message-ID: <eqccdc$k89$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
References: <1169636785.504223.139630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
 <SJudnfsXuZsDLyrYnZ2dnUVZ_t6qnZ2d@comcast.com> <45b8361a_5@news.bluewin.ch>
 <m7ejpj5u9t.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <u7iv8o16m.fsf@stephe-leake.org>
 <3pejpgfbki.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <epkcru$fk2$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <njirepncb0.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eppn6r$m41$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <vwbqkffq94.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eputhf$p8u$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <dzsldoachu.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eq6v5b$bsb$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <l5iregra8a.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eq9gv3$dre$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <il64aftsq7.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eqa2j8$mfu$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <bpveifcmum.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <eqc456$fp5$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <45c99c24$1@news.post.ch>
NNTP-Posting-Host: abpc10883.cern.ch
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: cernne03.cern.ch 1170846956 20745 137.138.37.241 (7 Feb 2007 11:15:56
 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@@cern.ch
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2007 11:15:56 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.9 (X11/20061220)
In-Reply-To: <45c99c24$1@news.post.ch>
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9066
Date: 2007-02-07T12:15:55+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Martin Krischik wrote:

>> What I'm against is a GC "paradigm" that prevents me from having 
>> deterministic "good bye" hooks for scoped lifetime. The problem is 
>> that most GC-oriented languages I'm aware of do have this "issue".
> 
> But isn't that exactly what "Unchecked_Deallocation" and "pragma 
> Controlled" is all about? Has Ada - by your rationale - not got GC right?

By my rationale Ada and C++ got it perfectly right ([Limited_]Controlled 
mess aside).

The only difference between them in this regard is that Ada explicitly 
allows GC on the low level without requiring it (so that implementations 
can ignore the whole idea) and that C++ is traditionally silent about 
the concept altogether (so that implementations can provide it). ;-)

(Note that GC will likely be formalized in the upcoming C++ standard.)

My criticism is targeted at those languages which bring GC to the top 
level obstructing the visible part of the object model.

-- 
Maciej Sobczak : http://www.msobczak.com/
Programming    : http://www.msobczak.com/prog/