Xref: utzoo comp.lang.c++:3650 comp.lang.eiffel:270 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!hafro!krafla!snorri From: snorri@rhi.hi.is (Snorri Agnarsson) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.eiffel Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++ -- Let's drop the garbage collection arguments Message-ID: <1026@krafla.rhi.hi.is> Date: 13 Jun 89 16:48:35 GMT References: Organization: University of Iceland Lines: 39 From article , by cline@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Marshall Cline): > No one in the C++ camp is saying that malloc()/free() are "free". > The point is simply that malloc()/free() is ***CONTROLLABLE***. You seem to be suggesting that malloc()/free() is more controllable than malloc()/garbage collection. If so, then in what sense?? Garbage collection can be time-consuming, of course, but so can free(). If you have a language with garbage collection, it is usually very easy to ensure that no garbage collection gets performed in some critical section by simply not allocating any memory. > That's what C/C++ programmers like: TO BE IN CONTROL. > That't what Eiffel programmers DON'T like: TO BE FORCED TO CONTROL. I do not understand what you are trying to say. > C++ folks don't want to be FORCED to have garbage collection ALL the time. That's good since in most instances they don't have garbage collection any of the time. But maybe some of them would like to have garbage collection some of the time. > Eiffel folks don't want to be FORCED to memory allocation ALL the time. ???????????? > Conclusion: Let's drop the garbage collection argument from this discussion. If you think talking about garbage collection is a waste of bandwidth you are certainly entitled to that opinion, but I do not have to agree with you. > Marshall Cline -- Snorri Agnarsson | Internet: snorri@rhi.hi.is Taeknigardur, Dunhaga 5 | UUCP: ..!mcvax!hafro!rhi!snorri IS-107 Reykjavik, ICELAND