Re: memory management and productivity

[Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen <ole-hjalmar.kristensen@substitute_employer_here.com>]

>>>>> "SL" == Stephen Leake <stephen_leake@acm.org> writes:
<snip>

    SL> I'm suggesting that "garbage collection" is not what they _need_
    SL> (different from what they _want_).

    >> In other words, it would make Ada a more versatile language. 

    SL> Nope.

    SL> As many have pointed out, Ada the _langauge_ allows for garbage
    SL> collection, and some implementations have provided it (JGNAT in
    SL> particular). That has not lead to commercial success. So what has
    SL> changed, that you think it will lead to commercial success now?

"Allows for" is not the same as is available. You cannot write a
portable Ada application and take advantage of automatic garbage
collection. You *can* do that with Java. You can argue that
programmers do not need garbage collection, but you cannot stop them
from wanting it.

But I agree, I do not think that adding garbage collection would make
much difference wrt. commercial success of Ada. I think Ada is doomed
to forever being a niche language.

    SL> Ada provides better ways to manage memory, and programmers that take
    SL> the time to figure that out don't need traditional "garbage
    SL> collection".

Of course yo do not need it, but it can be convenient.

    >> Maybe you don't think that's wise, but if you don't, please don't
    >> complain about the fact that Java dwarfs Ada in popularity (and is
    >> now being adapted big-time for real-time use by the military).

    SL> I've never "complained" about that. I'm disappointed in the waste of
    SL> my tax dollars, but that's nothing new :).

    SL> -- 
    SL> -- Stephe


-- 
   C++: The power, elegance and simplicity of a hand grenade.