From: "Robert Comer" 

> Object lifetime isn't the same thing as memory management. Consider a
> database transaction, or any resource lock. Why you want your
> underpressure, tired etc programmers time after time having to do their
> own rollbacks or releases is beyond me.

Why would you do that, the DB should be able to handle the rollbacks.

> OTOH garbage collection isn't a panacea, however you manage memory if your
> programmers don't know what they're doing you're heading for trouble.

At least you get apps that wouldn't compromise the OS as easily as C++ for
those tired programmers from your first paragraph.

- Bob Comer


"Paul Ranson"  wrote in message
news:428a7eb2{at}w3.nls.net...
> Object lifetime isn't the same thing as memory management. Consider a
> database transaction, or any resource lock. Why you want your
> underpressure, tired etc programmers time after time having to do their
> own rollbacks or releases is beyond me.
>
> OTOH garbage collection isn't a panacea, however you manage memory if your
> programmers don't know what they're doing you're heading for trouble.
>
> Paul
>
> "Adam Flinton"  wrote in message
> news:428a3429$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Paul Ranson wrote:
>>> I don't see any point in being different for the sake of it. And both
>>> Java and C# seem to be jumping through hoops to avoid doing destructors
>>> the easy way, which means code written in either that needs to manage
>>> object lifetimes is more convoluted and error prone than it need be. I
>>> think the work being done on C++ for .NET is pretty interesting, even if
>>> it's of no use to me personally at the moment.
>>>
>>
>> Why on earth you want underpressure tired etc programmers time after time
>> having to do their own memory management is beyond me.
>>
>> Hello memleak my old friend,
>> It's time to bring down the system again...
>>
>> Adam
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5