Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!news.dougwise.org!nntpfeed.proxad.net!proxad.net!feeder1-2.proxad.net!usenet-fr.net!de-l.enfer-du-nord.net!feeder2.enfer-du-nord.net!feeds.phibee-telecom.net!usenet.ukfsn.org!not-for-mail From: Martin Gregorie Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: Managed-Code Bloat Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:21:59 +0000 (UTC) Organization: UK Free Software Network Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <8486d40e-0cc1-40ec-93bc-41658d22edeb@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: 84.45.235.129 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: localhost.localdomain 1307384519 26942 84.45.235.129 (6 Jun 2011 18:21:59 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@localhost.localdomain NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 18:21:59 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies) Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5026 On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 10:47:10 -0700, Alessio Stalla wrote: > [*] I mean languages in which new projects are actively being written; > maintenance of old COBOL and FORTRAN code does not count. > Garbage collection and stack management are largely irrelevant for COBOL - all data space is declared statically and the ways in which PERFORM can be used more or less guarantees that its use will not involve the stack. About the only use that COBOL might make of the stack would be to call separately compiled modules, i.e. with the CALL verb. I've never had much to do with Fortran, but from what I've seen of it much the same would be true: no dynamically declared off-stack data and the stack only used for subroutine calls, parameter passing and a subroutine's local variables. IOW neither language needs a garbage collector. -- martin@ | Martin Gregorie gregorie. | Essex, UK org |