Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request

[jayessay <nospam@foo.com>]

"Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de> writes:

> On 06 Sep 2004 17:12:54 -0400, jayessay wrote:
> 
> >> And if you open files or lock mutexes or consume any other limited
> >> resource, you are going to have to ensure they are released by
> >> writing the equivalent of a destructor.
> > 
> > Macros eliminate this sort of "boiler plate" code.  These are nothing
> > at all like a destructor.  Most other uses of "destructors" typically
> > revolve around "memory management" which obviously is pretty
> > irrelevant in Common Lisp.
> > 
> > A typical example here would be with-open-file.  You simply do not
> > need to be concerned with the maintenance of the file/os resource,
> > etc.  It is handled for you and guranteed to be cleaned up when
> > leaving scope whether by normal or exceptional flow.
> > 
> > Same with locks:
> > 
> > ;;; Serialize access, lock for update, guarantee unlock on exception,
> > ;;; and unlock/commit on success
> > ;;;
> > (with-protected-resource (get-database :medline-journals)
> >   (foo it)
> >   (bar it))
> 
> That's because LISP is not truly dynamic. In a really dynamic language the
> scopes should be regarded as superfluous as type information, they just
> bind programmer's fantasy and creativity. Bad enough, the nasty compiler
> might guess your intention (to lock something). What is worse is that the
> code maintainer could do it too! Garbage collectors solve this. My favorite
> language is MS-DOS: format C: /q solves everything.

Whatever floats your boat, bro...


/Jon

-- 
'j' - a n t h o n y at romeo/charley/november com