On Jul 17, 2012, at 11:31 AM, Martin Hewitson wrote: > On 17, Jul, 2012, at 05:42 PM, Sean McBride <s...@rogue-research.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 12:30:39 +0200, Martin Hewitson said: >> >>> This started to appear during the process of going from GC to non-GC. >> >> What do you mean "non-GC"? I strongly suggest going from GC to ARC, not >> from GC back to the stone-age retain-release. Although quite different >> 'under the hood', writing for GC and ARC is not so different, and you can >> even switch over slowly. > > That was my original plan, but ARC is 64-bit only, right? I'm not sure I'm > ready to drop 32-bit support yet, at least not without canvasing opinion from > the users. > > Martin
I’ve got an app that’s backward-compatible all the way to 10.4/PPC, to which I added Sparkle support about half a year ago. In that half year, according to the Sparkle stats, 93.99% of my users have been on 64-bit Intel CPUs. Of the 6% who are not on 64-bit Intel, only 2.72% are using 32-bit Intel, followed by 1.91% on 32-bit PPC and 1.38% on 64-bit PPC (i.e. the G5). Needless to say, the next major release of my app will not be backward-compatible all the way to 10.4/PPC. I’d caution against putting too much effort into supporting what may well be a statistically insignificant portion of your user base. If you’re porting from GC, port it to ARC, and you’ll save yourself a great deal of time and headaches. 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: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
