On Apr 13, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Quincey Morris wrote:
On Apr 13, 2009, at 10:07, Michael Ash wrote:
I'm confused. If you can't stand six years then you can't rely on
-finalize. Nothing guarantees that it will *ever* be called in a
timely fashion.
No need to be confused. I was just admitting your correctness and
then hiding behind a smiley face.
However, the part I didn't say before was the question of whether a
garbage collector that didn't collect unreferenced objects in a
*reasonably* timely fashion was or was not defective. (And, yes,
"timely" is somewhat elastic here.)
If the answer is that it might take six years (i.e. more or less
never) then your earlier statement can't be true in any practical
sense:
I don't have deep knowledge of Apple garbage collector, I'm just
grateful user of it.
In general, though, it's perfectly reasonable to put off garbage
collection for as long as possible. It's fairly expensive, and if
there is no pressure on the resource being garbage-collected, it's
perfectly reasonable to defer garbage collection until there is
pressure. There's a reasonable chance that the application will
terminate before then, and then you've save the effort. In other
words, it's not the clock that controls whether garbage collection
need to run, it's the presence of garbage.
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
