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=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,
	PP_MIME_FAKE_ASCII_TEXT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
Path: 
 eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!mx02.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!gandalf.srv.welterde.de!news.jacob-sparre.dk!loke.jacob-sparre.dk!pnx.dk!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: BDD package in Ada.
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 18:49:40 -0500
Organization: Jacob Sparre Andersen Research & Innovation
Message-ID: <mg736k$5bd$1@loke.gir.dk>
References: <44b2e375-8993-4a7e-b81a-6a7b512d2e3e@googlegroups.com>
 <1miph3v72f4y2$.1u76w2ujg74zf$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <c7db12c1-10fa-40ee-a2df-ff8a8b2177bc@googlegroups.com>
 <mg46ko$u76$1@loke.gir.dk> <87wq1mdwa1.fsf@jester.gateway.sonic.net>
 <7136971a-4bc8-4f42-a605-5a37127ca4a9@googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: rrsoftware.com
X-Trace: loke.gir.dk 1428623381 5485 24.196.82.226 (9 Apr 2015 23:49:41 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: news@jacob-sparre.dk
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2015 23:49:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.5931
X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.6157
Xref: news.eternal-september.org comp.lang.ada:25502
Date: 2015-04-09T18:49:40-05:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

<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.