Re: BDD package in Ada.

["Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1662 bytes --]

<gautier_niouzes@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:7136971a-4bc8-4f42-a605-5a37127ca4a9@googlegroups.com...
Le jeudi 9 avril 2015 01:40:08 UTC+2, Paul Rubin a écrit :

>> I'd say Ada's target market has shrunk in the last few decades, to the
>> realtime systems and embedded control sectors.  The remaining sector of
>> big server-side non-realtime systems (a buddy of mine used to work on
>> those) has been mostly ceded to Java, which is garbage collected.  GC's
>> main benefits are when the program is complicated enough that manual
>> memory management increases development effort significantly and makes
>> bugs more likely.  It's less of an issue in simpler programs, especially
>> those that don't need dynamic memory.

>This seems to suggest there are only GC and manual memory management as
>alternatives. Ada provides a third way in this respect with controlled 
>types.
>Just my two centimes ;-)

As I noted before, Ada provides at least 5 ways to manage dynamic memory:
(1) Stack
(2) Container
(3) Controlled types (as in Smart Pointers)
(4) Subpools (perhaps "semi-manual")
(5) Traditional allocate/deallocate

There's nothing "manual" about the first three from the perspective of a 
client (programmer). GC proponents complain about the work to create things 
like (1), (2), and (3) -- but there is no work for Ada programmers when you 
are using language capabilities or widely available libraries. Most people 
shouldn't be creating containers -- there's no point, you'll have a hard 
time doing better than the language-defined ones, and your time could be 
better used doing something else.

                                     Randy.