Doesn't matter to me that it's optional. In my view Apple made all the GC-using languages look stupid when they achieved 99% of the benefit with just a few conventions. It was an example of cleverly subverting the herd, which was cool. Now they are just following it.
Doesn't matter to me that it's optional. In my view Apple made all the GC-using languages look stupid when they achieved 99% of the benefit with just a few conventions. It was an example of cleverly subverting the herd, which was cool. Now they are just following it.
The first high level languages in the 50s had garbage collection. Not having it was just an aberration. Programmers shouldn't have to worry about it.
There's not much to Leopard, on the surface at least. It should be a free upgrade, or at least half price.
And what's up with the Garbage Collection being added to Cocoa? Makes you ashamed to be a Mac developer.
Not all Cocoa programs are high performance apps. Anything that brings more programmers into Cocoa or improves the (memory) performance of others is pretty much a good thing.
I still probably won't touch it, but a lot of people wouldn't even think about Cocoa because they've only ever used Java and C/C++ and assumed that Cocoa was closer to the latter.
Doesn't matter to me that it's optional. In my view Apple made all the GC-using languages look stupid when they achieved 99% of the benefit with just a few conventions. It was an example of cleverly subverting the herd, which was cool. Now they are just following it.
I should have read down further before posting. You are serious.
Garbage collection is considered to be a significent boost to productivity for programmers, and to the reliability of the developed programs. Perhaps Apple should have added this earlier.
I should have read down further before posting. You are serious.
Garbage collection is considered to be a significent boost to productivity for programmers, and to the reliability of the developed programs. Perhaps Apple should have added this earlier.
I can't understand why you seem to be against it.
A question of purism. Lack of garbage collection enforces higher-quality, higher-performance code. On the other hand, availability of garbage collection encourages many more developers to write code at all.
A question of purism. Lack of garbage collection enforces higher-quality, higher-performance code. On the other hand, availability of garbage collection encourages many more developers to write code at all.
Realistically, having GC is better. Period.
I understand the "purisn arument. The problem is that not all programmers are willing to do the due dilligence that is required when doing it manually. That's been one of the reasons why it was developed in the first place.
I would rather have reliable code, than code that is marginally faster, but crashes more often.
Euww. Pale blue panes with borders that are too small to hit AND a drawer. Keep the drawer, get rid of the pale blue. I'd already forgot about metal as I've not seen metal in a year or so - I run Uno.
I should have read down further before posting. You are serious.
Garbage collection is considered to be a significent boost to productivity for programmers, and to the reliability of the developed programs. Perhaps Apple should have added this earlier.
I can't understand why you seem to be against it.
I think Cocoa's current solution of using autorelease and tying it in with the application event loop was a stroke of genius. Imagine the kind of mental leap someone had to make to bring the event loop in to a discussion of memory management. On the face they seem totally unrelated, and yet in hindsight it is perfect.
Autorelease is a good middle ground between completely manual reference counting and completely automatic memory management, with it's wasteful walking through thousands of pointers to find unreferenced objects. IMO, they already have the best solution out there, and they (not me) are the ones being purist by going to a fully automatic model.
I think Cocoa's current solution of using autorelease and tying it in with the application event loop was a stroke of genius. Imagine the kind of mental leap someone had to make to bring the event loop in to a discussion of memory management. On the face they seem totally unrelated, and yet in hindsight it is perfect.
Autorelease is a good middle ground between completely manual reference counting and completely automatic memory management, with it's wasteful walking through thousands of pointers to find unreferenced objects. IMO, they already have the best solution out there, and they (not me) are the ones being purist by going to a fully automatic model.
I agree with Chucker's: "It's optional."
As I mentioned in an earlier post, not all programmers will be interested in cleaning up. This gives them a better choice.
What's interesting is that in almost all cases* GC will be faster than Cocoa's retain/release method. I agree that retain/release is about as good as it gets regarding manual memory management, but there is a lot of messaging overhead with that method. When the AutoReleasePool is released, it in turn sends a release message to all the objects it contains. This can add up to a lot of messages depending on the situation. Now with something like a mark and sweep implemented in the runtime, automatic memory management can actually be faster.
Comments
There's not much to Leopard, on the surface at least. It should be a free upgrade, or at least half price.
And what's up with the Garbage Collection being added to Cocoa? Makes you ashamed to be a Mac developer.
I know real developers use assembly because using higher levels of abstraction that make you more productive as a dev just isn't the mac way.
It's optional.
Doesn't matter to me that it's optional. In my view Apple made all the GC-using languages look stupid when they achieved 99% of the benefit with just a few conventions. It was an example of cleverly subverting the herd, which was cool. Now they are just following it.
Doesn't matter to me that it's optional. In my view Apple made all the GC-using languages look stupid when they achieved 99% of the benefit with just a few conventions. It was an example of cleverly subverting the herd, which was cool. Now they are just following it.
The first high level languages in the 50s had garbage collection. Not having it was just an aberration. Programmers shouldn't have to worry about it.
How do you tell what build you're running? I'm running Tiger BTW.
Apple Menu -> About this Mac
Click on the version number and it cycles through 'Version 10.4.8', 'Build 8L127' and your computer's serial number.
Apple Menu -> About this Mac
Click on the version number and it cycles through 'Version 10.4.8', 'Build 8L127' and your computer's serial number.
Oh shit yeah I forgot about that, thanks.
(I must install that other cat on my desk now, and do that)
I don't know if I should or shouldn't post it....
Delete this post if I violate your TOS.
Moderator note: yeah, we can't allow that. Sorry.
Here is a screenshot of the new iCal...
I don't know if I should or shouldn't post it....
Delete this post if I violate your TOS.
Wow it's so different, NOT.
It's slightly different. The brush metal is gone, great.
Wow it's so different, NOT.
I hate the damn drawer.
I wish they would get rid of it.
Here is a screenshot of the new iCal...
It's like when you shine a really bright light on something and it looks all washed out. I hope it's not the final iteration.
There's not much to Leopard, on the surface at least. It should be a free upgrade, or at least half price.
And what's up with the Garbage Collection being added to Cocoa? Makes you ashamed to be a Mac developer.
Not all Cocoa programs are high performance apps. Anything that brings more programmers into Cocoa or improves the (memory) performance of others is pretty much a good thing.
I still probably won't touch it, but a lot of people wouldn't even think about Cocoa because they've only ever used Java and C/C++ and assumed that Cocoa was closer to the latter.
There's not much to Leopard, on the surface at least. It should be a free upgrade, or at least half price.
And what's up with the Garbage Collection being added to Cocoa? Makes you ashamed to be a Mac developer.
Is this a serious post, or a joke?
Doesn't matter to me that it's optional. In my view Apple made all the GC-using languages look stupid when they achieved 99% of the benefit with just a few conventions. It was an example of cleverly subverting the herd, which was cool. Now they are just following it.
I should have read down further before posting. You are serious.
Garbage collection is considered to be a significent boost to productivity for programmers, and to the reliability of the developed programs. Perhaps Apple should have added this earlier.
I can't understand why you seem to be against it.
I should have read down further before posting. You are serious.
Garbage collection is considered to be a significent boost to productivity for programmers, and to the reliability of the developed programs. Perhaps Apple should have added this earlier.
I can't understand why you seem to be against it.
A question of purism. Lack of garbage collection enforces higher-quality, higher-performance code. On the other hand, availability of garbage collection encourages many more developers to write code at all.
Realistically, having GC is better. Period.
A question of purism. Lack of garbage collection enforces higher-quality, higher-performance code. On the other hand, availability of garbage collection encourages many more developers to write code at all.
Realistically, having GC is better. Period.
I understand the "purisn arument. The problem is that not all programmers are willing to do the due dilligence that is required when doing it manually. That's been one of the reasons why it was developed in the first place.
I would rather have reliable code, than code that is marginally faster, but crashes more often.
Here is a screenshot of the new iCal...
I don't know if I should or shouldn't post it....
Delete this post if I violate your TOS.
Euww. Pale blue panes with borders that are too small to hit AND a drawer. Keep the drawer, get rid of the pale blue. I'd already forgot about metal as I've not seen metal in a year or so - I run Uno.
I should have read down further before posting. You are serious.
Garbage collection is considered to be a significent boost to productivity for programmers, and to the reliability of the developed programs. Perhaps Apple should have added this earlier.
I can't understand why you seem to be against it.
I think Cocoa's current solution of using autorelease and tying it in with the application event loop was a stroke of genius. Imagine the kind of mental leap someone had to make to bring the event loop in to a discussion of memory management. On the face they seem totally unrelated, and yet in hindsight it is perfect.
Autorelease is a good middle ground between completely manual reference counting and completely automatic memory management, with it's wasteful walking through thousands of pointers to find unreferenced objects. IMO, they already have the best solution out there, and they (not me) are the ones being purist by going to a fully automatic model.
I think Cocoa's current solution of using autorelease and tying it in with the application event loop was a stroke of genius. Imagine the kind of mental leap someone had to make to bring the event loop in to a discussion of memory management. On the face they seem totally unrelated, and yet in hindsight it is perfect.
Autorelease is a good middle ground between completely manual reference counting and completely automatic memory management, with it's wasteful walking through thousands of pointers to find unreferenced objects. IMO, they already have the best solution out there, and they (not me) are the ones being purist by going to a fully automatic model.
I agree with Chucker's: "It's optional."
As I mentioned in an earlier post, not all programmers will be interested in cleaning up. This gives them a better choice.