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!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx01.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-feed01.roc.ny.frontiernet.net!nntp.frontiernet.net!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: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net> <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net> <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net> <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net> From: Ray Blaak Organization: The Transcend Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 19:31:29 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.66.252.228 X-Trace: edtnps90 1170358289 208.66.252.228 (Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:31:29 MST) NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 01 Feb 2007 12:31:29 MST Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8823 Date: 2007-02-01T19:31:29+00:00 List-Id: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" writes: > >> There is absolutely no need to have built-in GC, if you have abstract > >> referential (access) interfaces. Note additional advantage: you can have > >> different GC's handling objects of same types in the same application! > > > > But there is. Only under very restricted circumstances the necessity > > of deallocation can be decided locally. With reference sharing > > (representation sharing) between values (think Lisp-like lists -- and > > I think you need that for efficience reasons sooner or later -- you're > > either back to a "manual" reference counting scheme (inefficient) or > > you really need GC. > > I don't see how "manual" is different from "implemented by the compiler > vendor." There is no magical GC hardware around... Each GC is reference > counting, only the ways of counting differ. Are you saying this seriously? The difference, of course, is the amount of programmer effort involved. If the compiler does it, then GC is implemented "correctly" (or at least more correctly than the programmer's efforts) without the programmer needing to redo it all the time. Even if you have a reusable GC library, I would still assert that you cannot do your own GC properly at the application level. It is not that magical GC hardware is needed, it is instead that the compiler has all the low level hooks so as to provide the GC with the information needed to know when data is in use or not. -- 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.