home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.transputer
- Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sun4nl!dutrun!dutrun2!dutncp8!rob
- From: rob@pact.nl (Rob Kurver)
- Subject: Re: Dynamic memory (was: Re: Recursion in occam)
- Message-ID: <rob.722540734@dutncp8>
- Sender: news@dutrun2.tudelft.nl (UseNet News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: dutncp8.tn.tudelft.nl
- Organization: PACT, Delft, The Netherlands
- References: <142@autro1.UUCP> <rob.722177288@dutncp8> <1992Nov20.102603.2898@titan.inmos.co.uk> <By1FGL.CKF@wizzy.com>
- Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:45:34 GMT
- Lines: 31
-
- In <By1FGL.CKF@wizzy.com> andyr@wizzy.com (Andy Rabagliati) writes
- about Occam and dynamic memory:
-
- >Occam was designed as a parallel programming language, with concurrency
- >implemented inter- and intra-processor.
-
- >For a transputer way out on a limb somewhere, running out of memory
- >resource is fatal.
-
- Indeed. So _programs_ should make sure they don't run out of memory.
-
- Is this best accomplished by removing support for heap-based dynamic
- memory from the language? Or should you provide both static and
- dynamic memory allocation, and tell people about the pros and cons
- of each?
-
- Why do you think it is impossible to run out of memory with static
- memory allocation? Don't fixed-size arrays fill up? Don't you
- actually fill up one of the fixed-size arrays quicker than one of
- the dynamic-size arrays?
-
- Statically allocating the available memory does not solve the
- out-of-memory problem, but actually makes it worse!
-
- Rob
-
- --
- PACT Rob Kurver
- Foulkeslaan 87 rob@pact.nl
- 2625 RB Delft ph: +31 15 616864
- The Netherlands fax: +31 15 610032
-