Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hp-pcd!hplsla!jima
From: jima@hplsla.HP.COM (Jim Adcock)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Garbage collection and destructors
Message-ID: <6590187@hplsla.HP.COM>
Date: 7 Jul 89 18:08:22 GMT
References: <44337@oliveb.olivetti.com>
Organization: HP Lake Stevens, WA
Lines: 12

>Make of this what you will.  For C++, it looks like the issue is "do
>we really want garbage collection?"  For Modula-3, the question is
>instead "do we really want finalization"?

Again, I would hope GC is not going to become a "built-in" feature of
C++, but rather, like streams, a standard library that people can choose
to use or not choose.  Then, like any other library, a GC that prohibits
the use of other GC libraries would be a bad design.  And general purpose 
classes that aren't tied to a particular GC would be better than ones that
are.  And classes that don't need GC would still be the ones most widely
applicable, reusable, and therefore "best."  I hope these issues can continue
to be decided on a class-by-class basis.