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!news.tele.dk!feed118.news.tele.dk!news.tele.dk!small.news.tele.dk!lnewsinpeer00.lnd.ops.eu.uu.net!bnewsinpeer00.bru.ops.eu.uu.net!emea.uu.net!newsfeed.arcor.de!newsspool1.arcor-online.net!news.arcor.de.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>
Subject: Re: in defense of GC (was 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: <1169531612.200010.153120@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
 <L2ith.12633$ji1.1337@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net>
 <mailman.44.1169724732.18371.comp.lang.ada@ada-france.org>
 <WaBuh.15096$pQ3.10501@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <xwsldwre3j.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <HYPuh.15976$yx6.6882@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <md64ashx3o.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1mahvxskejxe1$.tx7bjdqyo2oj$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <2tfy9vgph3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1g7m33bys8v4p.6p9cpsh3k031$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <s1mz41g7d3.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <14hm72xd3b0bq$.axktv523vay8$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <4zwt33xm4b.fsf@hod.lan.m-e-leypold.de>
 <1j7neot6h1udi$.14vp2aos6z9l8.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ubqkd8yk3.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <AuednXvMpOTR8l_YnZ2dnUVZ_ruknZ2d@megapath.net>
 <u7iv18hm3.fsf_-_@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
 <1pzx3y7d2pide.y744copm0ejb$.dlg@40tude.net>
 <ulkjgpgt4.fsf@STRIPCAPStelus.net>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 2007 21:04:07 +0100
Message-ID: <w9hzsx8zcv0t.g21eo7q6ssau.dlg@40tude.net>
NNTP-Posting-Date: 02 Feb 2007 21:03:53 CET
NNTP-Posting-Host: 7ee89ab1.newsspool2.arcor-online.net
X-Trace: 
 DXC=KdoB6UH=6eA78PK[oJ2ng@A9EHlD;3YcB4Fo<]lROoRAFl8W>\BH3YBe_KGaoFYJ?MDNcfSJ;bb[EIRnRBaCd<MN@^_G3PhK5GJ@70PkE34?IC
X-Complaints-To: usenet-abuse@arcor.de
Xref: g2news2.google.com comp.lang.ada:8846
Date: 2007-02-02T21:03:53+01:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 18:15:05 GMT, Ray Blaak wrote:

> GC does not affect visibility or scoping.

But scoping does affect GC. If scope of each object is known, then there is
nothing to collect.

Further argumentation to what I have already made is that "object in use"
is a semantic concept which cannot be inferred (you wanted automatic
collection). "in use" /= "has references."

It is the programmer who expresses "in use" in language terms. It could be
scoped names or a bunch of controlled pointers distributed across the
program. There must be very strong reasons for choosing the latter.

(I don't think that gaining popularity for a programming language is a good
reason for spaghetti programming. (:-))

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de