From: Alex Martelli <aleax@...>
Date: 2002-01-04T02:31:01+09:00
Subject: [ruby-talk:30141] Re: subsetting and .NET (was Re: Python and Ruby: a comparison)

"Edward Diener" <eldiener@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C347C47.6000802@earthlink.net...
    ...
> your opinion and certainly not mine. GC languages do not seem to
> consider it important to ever control the order of the destruction of
> objects but there is a class of types and situations for which this is
> necessary and the usual solution for implementing this important idiom
> in GC languages ranges from poor to non-existent, although of course it

If you need to ensure that A is never destroyed before B, you just
add to B a (strong) reference to A.  That's all there is to it (in
Python, and other sensible "GC languages"), and I'd like to understand
how this is "poor" or "non-existent" -- it covers application needs.

It's also very obvious, so, why haven't you even addressed it above?


> A large part of this "GC necessity" debate has really to do with the
> design of a language and how much control the programmer should have
> over memory allocation and the construction and destruction of objects,
> what you rightly call "object ownership". Making a blanket statement
> that "object ownership" is "just not an appropriate tool for most
> application needs (garbage collection IS)" doesn't mean anything to me

On the other hand, it means a lot to zillions of application programmers
who waste their time debugging such low-level issues rather than adding
value to application program products.

Having to control object destruction and memory allocation is about as
sensible in an application's development as having to develop the silicon
production process for the CPU chips the application will run on.  And
if that "doesn't mean anything to you", let me shorten this: it's a
ridiculous waste of energy on inappropriately-low-level concerns.


> >>problems no longer exist for professional C++ programmers.
> >
> > I play the guru and language advisor for almost 200 professional C++
> > programmers at my current employer, and I maintain your assertion is
> > totally false.
>
> I personally don't care if you are the advisor to god himself on matters

In other words, you know you made a deliberately false assertion and
lack the guts to try to keep lying to defend it.

You have offended an uncounted number of professional C++ programmers --
all those for whom memory-management issues DO still exist as problems
(sadly, most of them), by denying their professionality, and lack the
common decency to apologize as publically as you offended once your
accusation is challenged.

Great.  Just great.


Alex