Newsgroups: alt.lang.design,comp.lang.c++,comp.lang.lisp
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Comparing productivity: LisP against C++ (was Re: Reference Counting)
Message-ID: <D1yIJK.EHI@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <3e30ag$ar1@wariat.wariat.org> <19941231.180912.4252 <19950102.030603.354344.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU>
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 1995 23:57:20 GMT
Lines: 17
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.c++:106077 comp.lang.lisp:16282

In article <19950102.030603.354344.NETNEWS@UICVM.UIC.EDU> dhanley@matisse.eecs.uic.edu (David Hanley) writes:
>Mike Chapman (Mike.Chapman@muc.de) wrote:
>: The are very rare occasions and very *few* reasons for preferring
>: manual memory management. The only valid one I know of is
>: for guaranteeing hard real time performance (look up the
>: definition).
>
>        1) Better overall performance.
>        2) Less memory usage.
>        3) Better VM behavior( this point is debated ).
>        4) Ease of creating compilers across a number of platforms.
>        5) Retaining the ability to manipulate pointers.

All of these are questionable, but I'm especially puzzled by 4.
Could someone please explain?

-- jd
