Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!gatech!hubcap!billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu
From: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu (William Thomas Wolfe, 2847 )
Newsgroups: comp.sw.components
Subject: Re: Real-time Garbage Collection
Message-ID: <6497@hubcap.clemson.edu>
Date: 19 Sep 89 00:34:24 GMT
References: <RANG.89Sep18160502@derby.cs.wisc.edu>
Sender: news@hubcap.clemson.edu
Reply-To: billwolf%hazel.cs.clemson.edu@hubcap.clemson.edu
Lines: 23

From rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang):
>>   It's safe to do so:
>>     1) When the variable goes out of scope
>>     2) When the programmer specifies that it's to be destroyed sooner.
> 
>   If there's any explicit pointer manipulation, these conditions
> aren't sufficient, because an object can be pointed to in more than
> one place.  

   True, but the basic thrust of the position is that the programmer
   should generally not use pointers explicitly; rather, the use of 
   pointers should be made safe via encapsulation within a secure ADT.
 
>   Personally, I prefer controlling my own data structures...leaving it
> up to a garbage collector has always seemed a little sloppy to me.

   Same here.  I welcome GC algorithms as an ADT *debugging* tool 
   (raising an exception if the algorithm ever succeeds in finding 
   any loose storage), but it just costs way too much at RUN time.


   Bill Wolfe, wtwolfe@hubcap.clemson.edu