From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham
	autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Thread: 103376,c406e0c4a6eb74ed
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: 
 g2news1.google.com!news1.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!feed2.news.rcn.net!rcn!feed3.news.rcn.net!not-for-mail
Sender: jsa@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Subject: Re: ADA Popularity Discussion Request
References: <49dc98cf.0408110556.18ae7df@posting.google.com>
 <cgn7bm$snk$3@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <e749549b.0408271348.74f5a957@posting.google.com>
 <cgpma7$pet$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <slrncj0nmf.hl6.adi@ppc201.mipool.uni-jena.de>
 <cgppvn$t4m$1@a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de>
 <6F2Yc.848$8d1.621@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3isb2ey3w.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <hMnYc.1759$w%6.1486@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>
 <m3656vfgmf.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <e749549b.0409042036.5d4822a2@posting.google.com>
 <m3oekjdru1.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
 <10qlsg9l2dvm0$.1hmtmnbmktmk$.dlg@40tude.net>
From: jayessay <nospam@foo.com>
Organization: Tangible
Date: 07 Sep 2004 11:25:13 -0400
Message-ID: <m37jr6drty.fsf@rigel.goldenthreadtech.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: 
 DXC=8Jho\Q7D0\gdePdd<;jV^n0R]m=BkYWIg:6bU3OT9S9jXBbeQGUQ43j^aM2i8keRmmNZgTLRVQ;8b
X-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.com
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:3436
Date: 2004-09-07T11:25:13-04:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

"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