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: 103376,13d6cd0af0d0d769
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker)
Subject: Re: Does memory leak?
Date: 1995/03/30
Message-ID: <hbaker-2903952208230001@192.0.2.1>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 100540648
sender: hbaker@netcom23.netcom.com
references: <3kopao$ekg@nef.ens.fr> <3kql6c$1b3@porte-de-st-ouen.ics.uci.edu>
 <3kuba0$8kd@gnat.cs.nyu.edu> <3l6gf6$h05@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>
organization: nil
newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1995-03-30T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3l6gf6$h05@theopolis.orl.mmc.com>, Theodore Dennison
<dennison@escmail.orl.mmc.com> wrote:

> Perhaps I'm missing something here...what exactly is wrong with using 
> UNCHECKED_DEALLOCATION?
> 
> I mean, if you don't deallocate what you allocate, your program will
> leak memory no matter what language it is written in. This isn't an Ada
> issue, it's an issue of sloppy coding.

Not necessarily true.  I've written lots and lots of Lisp programs, and
I think that I forgot to deallocate in almost all of them.  They worked
just fine.

(Of course I'm being facetious.  Lisp doesn't have a deallocate primitive,
because it has an automatic garbage collector, just like Modula and Eiffel.
Furthermore, garbage collection can't collect stuff that is still linked
to live objects, so you can still get a 'leak' this way.)

-- 
www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html