Related articles |
---|
[3 earlier articles] |
Re: Ada GC jmartin@cs.ucla.edu (1996-02-02) |
Re: Ada GC hbaker@netcom.com (1996-02-03) |
Re: Ada GC boehm@parc.xerox.com (1996-02-04) |
Re: Ada GC dewar@cs.nyu.edu (1996-02-04) |
Re: Ada GC dewar@cs.nyu.edu (1996-02-04) |
Re: Ada GC dewar@cs.nyu.edu (1996-02-04) |
Re: Ada GC hbaker@netcom.com (1996-02-04) |
Re: Ada GC redhawk@flash.net (Ken & Virginia Garlington) (1996-02-04) |
Re: Ada GC rogoff@sccm.Stanford.EDU (1996-02-09) |
Re: Ada GC lph@SEI.CMU.EDU (1996-02-09) |
Re: Ada GC ok@cs.rmit.edu.au (1996-02-09) |
Re: Ada GC boehm@parc.xerox.com (1996-02-09) |
Re: Ada GC ncohen@watson.ibm.com (1996-02-09) |
[12 later articles] |
From: | hbaker@netcom.com (Henry Baker) |
Newsgroups: | comp.compilers,comp.lang.ada |
Date: | 4 Feb 1996 12:36:54 -0500 |
Organization: | nil organization |
References: | 96-01-037 96-02-023 96-02-028 96-02-043 |
Keywords: | Ada, GC |
In article 96-02-043, dewar@cs.nyu.edu (Robert Dewar) wrote:
> I don't know what compiler vendor Jay worked for in the early 80's,
> but if he heard customers asking for garbage collection (I mean real
> customers with money), I sure did not see them around, and I *still*
> do not see them around. As I noted in an earlier note, we have had
> many serious and interesting requests for enhancement of GNAT from
> serious users, but not one such user has even suggested garbage
> collection as a useful addition.
> It is not "slacking-off" to listen to your customers and implement
> what they want to see. For example, I think far more customers were
> interested in bindings to standard libraries than GC.
A company that offers what people ask for will do ok. A company that
offers what people didn't realize they needed will do fantastically.
I'd be surprised if Sun's customers were blowing down their doors with
requests for a garbage-collected scripting language that masqueraded
as C++, at least until Sun showed them what it was good for...
The second approach is called 'market leadership'.
> I must say that, having gone through the effort of implementing the
> finalization features of Ada 95, I would guess that full GC could have
> been implemented with much less effort, and for many purposes it would
> clearly be preferable.
I've been saying this for years. Ada included all the strong typing
necessary to do a real GC, including the run-time typing of union
types, and the more-or-less proper handling of exceptions but then
snatched defeat from the jaws of victory by chickening out. The net
result is that all Ada programs pay the _costs_ of GC, but aren't
getting any of the _benefits_.
----
BTW, I understand that the new Telecom Bill that just passed Congress
has outlawed the ab*rting of tasks (or at least the discussion of it
on Usenet). This process will heretofore be called 'termination
enhancement', and an ab*rted task will be considered
'termination-enhanced'.
Please update your programs and language standards.
--
www/ftp directory:
ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/hb/hbaker/home.html
--
Return to the
comp.compilers page.
Search the
comp.compilers archives again.