🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7570@cbmvax.UUCP>, jesup@cbmvax.UUCP (Randell Jesup) writes:
> I consider any program on ANY os that doesn't
> free what it allocates (memory, file locks, whatever) to be at best poorly
> written.

Careful, Randall, I think you've been using your Amiga too long.  

There is no reason a program should have to free its memory if the operating 
system does it.  Programs written for such an OS cannot be considered
"at best poorly written" if their authors did not choose to gratuitously
add that redundant capability.

Few multitasking operating systems have not done tracked memory, because
memory leaks can crash them (cf AmigaDOS).  Protection, priveledge instructions
and such were created to keep rogue programs from doing in themselves, other
programs and the OS.

However, we have learned to live with this unprotected system, and there are
certain advatages, like intertask communication is easy and high-performance,
there are a million of these multitasking machines out there and people can 
buy them for $500.  So when people come to bash, comparing the Amiga
unfavorably to stripped $12,000 workstations, it gets kind of ridiculous.

Anyway, the Mac's in the same boat, as is every DOS/Windows user (an absurdity 
considering how long the 286, with its built-in MMU, has been out.)
-- 
-- uunet!sugar!karl	"Have you debugged your wolf today?"
-- free Usenet access: (713) 438-5018