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!news3.google.com!homer!news.glorb.com!news-spur1.glorb.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!edtnps90.POSTED!023a3d7c!not-for-mail
Sender: blaak@METROID
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular?
References: <1169636785.504223.139630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.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$1@cernne03.cern.ch> <uveiftbyu.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <1ic9j6bmbl0ik.gvgqhl1ixvxk$.dlg@40tude.net> <eqc0ki$e2d$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <1v9qweobb6xei.z5hdupxed63u.dlg@40tude.net> <eqhanb$kgj$1@cernne03.cern.ch>
 <urzykwg4pvo5$.ixt0x13xyd27$.dlg@40tude.net>
From: Ray Blaak <rAYblaaK@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Organization: The Transcend
Message-ID: <uabzn19x5.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 18:08:06 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.66.252.228
X-Trace: edtnps90 1171044486 208.66.252.228 (Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:08:06 MST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:08:06 MST
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9203
Date: 2007-02-09T18:08:06+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:
> It is still broken, because when you remove a connection (non-directed)
> between two nodes you don't know which of them should/may/can fall on the
> floor. This information is locally missing. It could be deduced from some
> transitive client-master/reference-target relation, but we have demolished
> that relation just before by introducing cycles.

Not really. You program according to a principle of locality of use. Some code
says "I no longer need this data", and lets go of it, without regard to
whether or not it is still in use somewhere else.

If every bit of code relinquishes its resources according to its local needs,
then the global effect via GC is that the resource is in fact properly
managed. The local effect is easier to prove and code to since at every local
step the "cleanup" work is much simpler in the presence of GC.

-- 
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.