TEAM-ADA Archives

Team Ada: Ada Programming Language Advocacy

TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Options: Use Classic View

Use Proportional Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender: "Team Ada: Ada Advocacy Issues (83 & 95)" <[log in to unmask]>
From: Ed Falis <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 1999 19:19:25 EST
Reply-To: Ed Falis <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (18 lines)
** Reply to message from Mark Lundquist <[log in to unmask]> on Mon, 1 Mar 1999
15:11:18 -0800


> I would say: use both.
>
> Manual management of dynamic objects can be quite tedious and
> error-prone.  It's better to design for as much robustness as you can,
> *and* use verification tools to try to catch whatever errors are left.

There's also the third option of using the Ada code with a commercial garbage
collector like Geodesic Systems' Great Circle.  This doesn't take away from the
idea of using multiple approaches; it just suggests another approach that can be
added into the mix if it suits the application.  And GC does suit a lot of
applications.

- Ed

ATOM RSS1 RSS2