Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 5:21 PM, Saagar Jha wrote: > > Oh, I guess I didn’t explain what I was talking about well. I’m saying that > the compiler would do a full method inline but put it behind a check to see > if it’s legal to continue executing. That optimization would increase code size (i

Re: Future of Cocoa

Oh, I guess I didn’t explain what I was talking about well. I’m saying that the compiler would do a full method inline but put it behind a check to see if it’s legal to continue executing. For example, code like this: @interface Foo - (void)bar; @end // Another method in some random class - (vo

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 2:46 PM, Saagar Jha wrote: > > I am curious why this optimization went in instead of guarded speculative > inlining, which would let you keep dynamism. If I understand it correctly, that only 'inlines' (really caches) the resolved method address for the call site. That

Re: Future of Cocoa

Probably because the benefit is minor compare to this optimisation (which let the compiler completely inline the called ‘method’ if it want). The actual method dispatch implementation is fast enough (in case of cache hit) to not gain much from inline caching, which introduce another layer of cac

Re: Future of Cocoa

I am curious why this optimization went in instead of guarded speculative inlining, which would let you keep dynamism. Maybe that was too complicated to implement or didn’t have the right performance characteristics. But I guess this isn’t really the right list for discussing that… Saagar Jha

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 2:16 PM, Jean-Daniel via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > If Obj-C is dead, why is Apple still adding new language extensions (and not > minor one) ? > > https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/commit/d4e1ba3fa9dfec2613bdcc7db0b58dea490c56b1 > >

Re: Future of Cocoa

> Le 20 nov. 2019 à 01:26, Gerald Henriksen via Cocoa-dev > a écrit : > > On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 13:51:14 -0700, you wrote: > >> When committing to 64 bit Apple said NO to Carbon but YES to Cocoa and YES >> to Core Foundation and YES to a lot of other stuff. The OS still has the XNU >> (Mach)

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 8:28 AM, Pier Bover via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > For example the vast majority of audio software > companies are still communicating to its users to not update to Catalina. > Huge audio companies like Native Instruments are still struggling with this. That's misleading. Na

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 9:28 AM, Pier Bover wrote: > > > Its not Apples fault if you were not aware. They were both highly talked > > about during their respective WWDC events. > > The vast majority of developers do not go to the WWDC and do not have time to > watch the dozens (hundreds?) of

Re: Future of Cocoa

> On Nov 20, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Pier Bover via Cocoa-dev > wrote: > > The vast majority of developers do not go to the WWDC and do not have time > to watch the dozens (hundreds?) of hours of videos to maybe find something > relevant about the future of macOS dev. In that case, scan through the o

Re: Future of Cocoa

> Its not Apples fault if you were not aware. They were both highly talked about during their respective WWDC events. The vast majority of developers do not go to the WWDC and do not have time to watch the dozens (hundreds?) of hours of videos to maybe find something relevant about the future of

[Slightly OT] Cocoa developer job ad

Hi all, I run a software company in the UK and we're looking to hire some full-time Mac software developers to join our growing team in Edinburgh, Scotland on a permanent basis. We'll be advertising for junior/mid-level, and senior software engineer roles in all the usual places, but I've been