Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?

[Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>]

"Randy Brukardt" <randy@rrsoftware.com> writes:
> I'm primarily interested in destroying the entire structure, and often I
> need no destruction at all: the structures exist until the termination of
> the program. There's no point of earlier cleanup in such programs, and
> surely no point in non-zero overhead to support such cleanup. I'm not aware
> of any zero-overhead GC algorithm, because the basic tenet of GC is that you
> can find all reachable objects: doing that requires some time and/or space
> overhead.

I don't think anyone anywhere claims zero-overhead for GC. The whole point is
reasonable performance (in fact competitive with manual management) and a much
easier job for the programmer, in situations with highly dynamic memory usage
patterns.

At any rate, one uses the tools that fit their needs. If you find yourself in
situations with stable data structures, then it sounds like you don't need GC,
plain and simple, or maybe even any cleanup at all.

-- 
Cheers,                                        The Rhythm is around me,
                                               The Rhythm has control.
Ray Blaak                                      The Rhythm is inside me,
rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net                    The Rhythm has my soul.