On Apr 17, 2010, at 8:34 AM, Ben Haller wrote: >> Lastly, if your objects are so simple (direct subclasses or NSObject, no >> pointer ivars, etc.), have you considered using plain C structs instead of >> objects? Or C++ objects and collections? I'm not saying you necessarily >> should use those, but you should consider them if performance is so critical >> and you're bending over backward to work against the normal Cocoa way. > > Yeah, I thought about that a lot, actually. It's a weird situation, but I > really do want and use inheritance and dynamic message dispatch and so forth. > It only comes into play a few times in the entire lifetime of each > individual object, but at those few crucial junctures, it would be a huge > PITA to be doing things the struct way. C++ hadn't occurred to me, but I'm > not fond of the language and don't really want to open that can of worms; to > me, that would be uglier than what I'm doing now, in fact. Is there a reason > that I'm missing, why that would be a good solution?
How about just giving your object only one instance variable, which is a pointer to a C struct, with all the object’s accessor methods pointing to elements in the struct? Then, all you’d have to do would be to swap out the struct for another one, or zero the struct. No runtime hacking, no assumptions about the internals of the object format. Charles_______________________________________________ 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
