Was this actually supposed to be a task? --[[User:Mwn3d|Mwn3d]] 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

[[User:Dmitry-kazakov]] has tended to a descriptive-and-task style before, e.g. [[Event]]. Given that it has a "Task" heading, this was clearly intended to be a task. I'll add the template. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 15:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

== Overlapping? ==

Isn't this a little bit overlapping [[Memory Allocation]]? --[[User:ShinTakezou|ShinTakezou]] 11:02, 31 July 2009 (UTC) : Yes. However, for languages that deal with low-level memory handling (notably [[C]]) it's quite a different thing. They're certainly not worth merging, though cross-referencing might be a good idea. –[[User:Dkf|Donal Fellows]] 00:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

==the REXX language, use of garbage collection==

Recently, the REXX entry was flagged as incorrect with the text:

:* ''In this explanation, a garbage collector is mentioned, while the rest of this story denies the presence of that.''

Where does "the rest of the story" even deny the presence of garbage collection? -- [[User:Gerard Schildberger|Gerard Schildberger]] ([[User talk:Gerard Schildberger|talk]]) 19:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

== Scala non-example ==

The Scala "example" is not an example. It is just an ideological statement about the task that boils down to "it can't reasonably be done in Scala". That, to me, means the Scala section should be removed and {{omit from|Scala|Scala does not have a program-controllable heap.}} added (just like with all the other languages in the same boat).

I'd hope that specific language sections are not the place for ideological arguments about why the task is bad or a bad fit for a specific language (unless perhaps it's as a ''small'' disclaimer before an example that accomplishes the task). —[[User:Dchapes|Dchapes]] ([[User talk:Dchapes|talk]]) 16:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)