Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cherokee.cis.ohio-state.edu!grichard From: grichard@cherokee.cis.ohio-state.edu (Golden Richard) Newsgroups: comp.sw.components Subject: Re: Re: Garbage Collection & ADTs Message-ID: <62342@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Date: 25 Sep 89 03:19:02 GMT References: <900@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> <6530@hubcap.clemson.edu> <909@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: Golden RichardOrganization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 14 In article <909@scaup.cl.cam.ac.uk> scc@cl.cam.ac.uk (Stephen Crawley) writes: [pro-GC arguments deleted] I find the current GC wars rather interesting, but I find myself siding naturally with Bill simply because I have *never* encountered a situation that absolutely demanded GC. Even without automatic scope-exit destructors for ADTs, programmer-controlled storage management isn't difficult. I'd be most interested in seeing some concrete example where GC was the 'only way to go'. -=- Golden Richard III OSU Department of Computer and Information Science grichard@cis.ohio-state.edu "I'm absolutely positive! ...or not."