[lisper]

I was responding to this:

> If you're willing to use a garbage collection library [0], you can even have a pleasant syntax for ObjectiveC style OOP in C:

That sounded to me as if you were claiming that GC is a pre-requisite for having a particular syntax. But I gather that's not what you meant. I'm still a little unclear about what you actually meant. You can have memory leaks like the one in your example above in vanilla C without any OOP features at all. GC is completely orthogonal to OOP, and both are completely orthogonal to syntax.

[xscott]

Yeah, I got your point. I don't think we're in disagreement about anything, and I probably shouldn't have conflated multiple topics. It's not really _syntax_, but this would be uglier to me:

    var temp = alloc("Circle radius: %d color: %u", r, 0xFF0000);
    var ignored = call(window, "draw: %d %d %p", x, y, temp);
    drop(ignored);
    drop(temp);

What's a good word for the overall/high level result being less attractive while the low level syntax isn't really the problem? Having a GC does tidy up the code and make it feel high level like Lisp/SmallTalk.

[lisper]

I don't know of a word for it. It's just a fact: GC simplifies code because it liberates the programmer from having to figure out when memory can be safely reused and transfers that responsibility to the runtime. It has next to nothing to do with any other aspect of language design, except insofar as if you have GC then your language can get by without any mechanism to allow the programmer to free allocated memory. This observation has some pretty significant practical impact, but you can't say much more about it than that.