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=-0.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no 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!news4.google.com!homer!news.glorb.com!news-spur1.glorb.com!news.glorb.com!news2.euro.net!newsfeed.freenet.de!news.osn.de!diablo1.news.osn.de!noris.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool3.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" Subject: Re: How come Ada isn't more popular? Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada User-Agent: 40tude_Dialog/2.0.15.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de Organization: cbb software GmbH References: <1169636785.504223.139630@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com> <45b8361a_5@news.bluewin.ch> <3pejpgfbki.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de> <1ic9j6bmbl0ik.gvgqhl1ixvxk$.dlg@40tude.net> <1v9qweobb6xei.z5hdupxed63u.dlg@40tude.net> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 15:02:12 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Date: 09 Feb 2007 15:02:12 CET NNTP-Posting-Host: d5e6f978.newsspool3.arcor-online.net X-Trace: DXC=IU]AgEEPg0[6LHn;2LCV>7enW;^6ZC`4IXm65S@:3>?hmg\j]Vj@<: X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:9191 Date: 2007-02-09T15:02:12+01:00 List-Id: On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 09:17:47 +0100, Maciej Sobczak wrote: > Still, there is a strong argument is that for some class of algorithms > it might be beneficial to be able to "drop on the floor" a bigger part > of the graph altogether. Consider a situation where an algorithm breaks > a connection between two nodes in a graph and just looses the interest > in the part that was on the other side of the broken connecion. It might > be a single node, but it might be as well million, with mesh (mess) of > connections between them. 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. In essence, there are two graphs. G is the mesh-mess. R is the graph induced by the reference-target relation. The problem is that these two graphs are sufficiently different. R (=>GC) cannot work as a complete model of G. It could, if it were a part of a larger model of G. > Reclaiming that abandoned part might require > implementing the same tracking logic that GC already provides out of the > box and therefore the argument goes that the use of off-the-shelf GC can > be beneficial for the memory-management aspect of such an algorithm. > (Any thoughts on this?) > > Personally, I accept this reasoning and I'm happy that I *can* plug for > example the Boehm collector if I find it useful - but at the same time I > don't find this class of algorithms to be so widespread as to justify GC > as a general "paradigm", worth exposure as a driving language feature. I think that your initial point is perfectly valid here, GC is fine when it is an implementation detail. GC as a "paradigm" could turn bad, because it is too narrow to gasp all cases. Therefore any language which restricts itself to GC is weakened per design. What is worse, it forces the programmer to use inherently wrong abstractions. -- Regards, Dmitry A. Kazakov http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de