Where are discussions about it occuring? I'd like to follow your progress. Maybe we could share some thoughts.
In AdaStep (aka gnat-cocoa) there is a problem with GC. Turning GC on is probably not an option at the moment. Classes created by Objective-C compiler are binary-documented by compiler, but Ada ancestors are not going to be unless someone write ASIS utility to parse Ada sources. Personally, I am all against GC. People complain loudly when discover that their new 500Gb HDD is detected as 418Gb or so. Decimal/hexadecimal Gbs, FS structures, 10% reserved for root -- this all adds to storage losses. People complain when they lose 8-30%. How happy can such a man be knowing that GC program can effectivelly use just 20%-40% out of his operative memory (loosing 60-80%)? I can think of solution like having two internal arrays of strong and weak references. To mark an array is simpler than arbitrary Ada object layout. And there still probably remain bounded errors. Boehm's heuristic behaviour on untyped objects doesn't sound good to me. Life would be much easier if one did not have to overlay non-GC PLs on top of GC ones. In .NET doing this is a bit simpler: .NET objects can be accessed through a COM. .NET wrappers correctly respond to AddRef and Release methods. Apple website states that retain and release do nothing in GC environment: http://developer.apple.com/leopard/overview/objectivec2.html With garbage collection enabled, the older reference count memory management methods of retain, release, and autorelease have no effect. I'm asking those who has Leopard, how much does programmer lose denying GC? May be GC is not worth bothering about. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/PasCocoa-design-tp21975675p21975675.html Sent from the Free Pascal - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
