Re: Ada GC

Ken & Virginia Garlington <>
4 Feb 1996 12:41:32 -0500

          From comp.compilers

Related articles
[6 earlier articles]
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-03)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-04)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-04)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-04)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-04)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-04)
Re: Ada GC (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 (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-09)
Re: Ada GC (1996-02-09)
[11 later articles]
| List of all articles for this month |

From: Ken & Virginia Garlington <>
Newsgroups: comp.compilers,comp.lang.ada
Date: 4 Feb 1996 12:41:32 -0500
Organization: Redhawk Kennels
References: 96-01-037 96-01-146 96-02-003 96-02-023 96-02-028
Keywords: Ada, GC

Jay Martin wrote:

> I agree that Ada83 compilers were supposed to have GC, its just that
> the compiler writers slacked-off. And I think that customers didn't
> want GC is a silly notion.

I'm an Ada customer, and I have never asked for GC in any of my
toolsets. I've spent several hundred thousand dollars on things I
_did_ want, some of which are now in the Safety and Security Annex (so
maybe I won't have to spend that kind of money on the _next_
project!), but GC has never been a requirement.

The compiler vendors, quite rightly, follow the money. And I suspect
that most of the companies that spend a lot on Ada don't need GC in
their applications. If they did, you would see GC in the toolset, and
never mind what the standard requires!

Post a followup to this message

Return to the comp.compilers page.
Search the comp.compilers archives again.