Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!gegeweb.org!newsfeed.x-privat.org!news2.euro.net!209.197.12.246.MISMATCH!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!69.16.185.16.MISMATCH!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!spln!extra.newsguy.com!newsp.newsguy.com!news4
From: Michael Wojcik <mwojcik@newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Managed-Code Bloat
Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2011 11:48:22 -0400
Organization: Micro Focus
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <iso6b262sr7@news4.newsguy.com>
References: <isht62$t08$1@lust.ihug.co.nz> <isis49$cpq$1@dont-email.me>	<8486d40e-0cc1-40ec-93bc-41658d22edeb@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com> <isj5s7$q9u$1@localhost.localdomain>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p568f5d38d1569233ebdf7d85d22b464ec798af6648fdb9a5.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.8.1.23) Gecko/20090812 Thunderbird/2.0.0.23 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0
In-Reply-To: <isj5s7$q9u$1@localhost.localdomain>
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:5109

Martin Gregorie wrote:
> 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. 

That hasn't been true, in general, since COBOL-85. While there
certainly are still old COBOL applications with fixed-size memory
requirements, a great many written over the past quarter-century make
use of arbitrary subroutine call (ie, out-of-line perform and call)
patterns, and a smaller number use reentrancy and/or threading.

And there have been garbage-collected COBOLs at least since the first
OO COBOLs appeared in the 1990s.

There are also managed-code COBOLs. Fujitsu has .NET COBOL; so do we,
and we also have JVM COBOL.

> 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.

Fortran 90 added dynamic memory allocation to the standard. Prior to
that I believe some implementations offered it as an extension.

I don't know if anyone has a garbage-collected Fortran implementation.

-- 
Michael Wojcik
Micro Focus
Rhetoric & Writing, Michigan State University