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: 5b1e799cdb,3ef3e78eacf6f938 X-Google-Attributes: gid5b1e799cdb,public,usenet X-Google-NewGroupId: yes X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news2.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!newsfeed2.telusplanet.net!newsfeed.telus.net!edtnps82.POSTED!7564ea0f!not-for-mail Sender: blaak@OLDMETROID Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.c++,comp.programming Subject: Re: Alternatives to C: ObjectPascal, Eiffel, Ada or Modula-3? References: <2009a75f-63e7-485e-9d9f-955e456578ed@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com> From: Ray Blaak Message-ID: Organization: The Transcend User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 17:22:01 GMT NNTP-Posting-Host: 206.116.52.245 X-Trace: edtnps82 1248888121 206.116.52.245 (Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:22:01 MDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2009 11:22:01 MDT Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.scheme:6162 comp.lang.ada:7418 comp.lang.c++:48540 comp.programming:12121 Date: 2009-07-29T17:22:01+00:00 List-Id: learn2code@yourdesk.com writes: > Garbage collection is a throwback to interpreted languages and bloated > run-time systems. Normal compiled languages get along very well without any > such thing at all. GC is an advancement of the state of the art. In general, GC manages memory better than people do. Is it always appropriate? No, it depends on what you are doing. Sometimes you need precise control. Fair enough. But the default of no GC forces the programmer to spent artificial effort on the memory management problem that could be better spent elsewhere. Hmm, this is also directed to comp.lang.ada. I recall debating this here before. Just google "GC" and my name for another thread arguing about GC in cla. > > Also, I find the OO notation a little quirky. > > That's a tough proposition from someone advocating C++. C++ notation is > hideous, obfuscated, and error-prone. It's one of the least readable (maybe > the worst in that regard) of any of the languages in common use. I was not advocating C++. I despise it too. There is nothing "wrong" with the Ada notation. It is just that my way of thinking prefers to conceptualize objects owning methods, e.g. obj.doSomething() vs doSomething(obj). That is just my preference. Actually doesn't Ada 2005 allow obj.method notation in more circumstances? > Well yes, if you don't know how to code and if you don't understand > fundamental aspects of software engineering like resource management, you > definitely shouldn't be writing code for commercial or industrial > environments and you probably should be using the "protect me from myself" > platforms like Java and C#. I can understand your post better now. Your debating style sucks. No need to be insulting just because I don't agree with you about GC. I have reasons and experience with using GC and not using GC, and I can back up my positions. I can also see the arguments for preferring explicit manual control. And you know, we can still validly disagree. Just don't be an asshole about things. -- 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.