On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:

> A bit off-topic, but well worth reading,
> 
> http://sealedabstract.com/rants/why-mobile-web-apps-are-slow/

Oh, regarding ObjC (and I'll qualify this by saying that I'm not an ObjC programmer).  My understanding is that ObjC was originally reference counted (ARC = Automatic Reference Counting).  Apple then introduced a mark & sweep GC for ObjC and then in the following release deprecated it and switched back to ARC for reasons I don't recall.  However, reference counting *is* garbage collection, despite what that slide suggests.  It just behaves in a manner that tends to spread the load out more evenly across the application lifetime.

Sean Kelly:

> However, reference counting *is* garbage collection,

Of course, it's explained well here:

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~cs415/reading/bacon-garbage.pdf

Bye,
bearophile

On 7/10/2013 7:52 AM, qznc wrote:
> On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 at 20:39:30 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
>> PS: That silhouette of the SR-71 at the point allocators are mentioned sets a
>> high bar for the design!
>
> I did not like that analogy at all. Have you seen the user interface of an SR-71?
>
> http://www.likecool.com/Gear/Pic/Spy%20Plane%20SR71%20Blackbird%20Cockpit/big/Spy-Plane-SR71-Blackbird-Cockpit.jpg
>

I always love the utilitarian design of military cockpits. No logos, no fake wood grain paneling, no styling, no color scheme, no cupholder. All business.

On 2013-07-10 19:25, Sean Kelly wrote:
> On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
>
>> A bit off-topic, but well worth reading,
>>
>> http://sealedabstract.com/rants/why-mobile-web-apps-are-slow/
>
> Oh, regarding ObjC (and I'll qualify this by saying that I'm not an ObjC programmer).  My understanding is that ObjC was originally reference counted (ARC = Automatic Reference Counting).  Apple then introduced a mark & sweep GC for ObjC and then in the following release deprecated it and switched back to ARC for reasons I don't recall.  However, reference counting *is* garbage collection, despite what that slide suggests.  It just behaves in a manner that tends to spread the load out more evenly across the application lifetime.

Objective-C originally used manual reference counting. Then Apple created a GC (never available on iOS). Then they implemented ARC in Clang. And now they have deprecated the GC and one should use ARC.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Am 10.07.2013 20:32, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On 2013-07-10 19:25, Sean Kelly wrote:
>> On Jul 9, 2013, at 11:12 AM, Paulo Pinto <pjmlp@progtools.org> wrote:
>>
>>> A bit off-topic, but well worth reading,
>>>
>>> http://sealedabstract.com/rants/why-mobile-web-apps-are-slow/
>>
>> Oh, regarding ObjC (and I'll qualify this by saying that I'm not an
>> ObjC programmer).  My understanding is that ObjC was originally
>> reference counted (ARC = Automatic Reference Counting).  Apple then
>> introduced a mark & sweep GC for ObjC and then in the following
>> release deprecated it and switched back to ARC for reasons I don't
>> recall.  However, reference counting *is* garbage collection, despite
>> what that slide suggests.  It just behaves in a manner that tends to
>> spread the load out more evenly across the application lifetime.
>
> Objective-C originally used manual reference counting. Then Apple
> created a GC (never available on iOS). Then they implemented ARC in
> Clang. And now they have deprecated the GC and one should use ARC.
>

What sometimes goes missed between the lines is that one of the decisions to go ARC instead of GC, is because the Objective-C GC never
worked properly and ARC offers a better fit for the current state of
Objective-C world.

First of all, GC was an opt-in and very few libraries supported it.

Then we have the typical issues with a conservative GC in a C based language, which lead to tons of issues if one looks into developer forums.

This is, of course, not good PR to explain the real technical reason why
they decided to go ARC instead, was that the GC implementation was a failure.


--
Paulo

On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 10:47:16 -0700
Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> On 7/10/2013 7:52 AM, qznc wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 at 20:39:30 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
> >> PS: That silhouette of the SR-71 at the point allocators are mentioned sets a high bar for the design!
> >
> > I did not like that analogy at all. Have you seen the user interface of an SR-71?
> >
> > http://www.likecool.com/Gear/Pic/Spy%20Plane%20SR71%20Blackbird%20Cockpit/big/Spy-Plane-SR71-Blackbird-Cockpit.jpg
> >
> 
> I always love the utilitarian design of military cockpits. No logos, no fake wood grain paneling, no styling, no color scheme, no cupholder. All business.

No cupholders is all fine and good until the sky gets clogged with ariel traffic and you have to put down your coffee.

*Then* you'll regret not opting for the deluxe package!

On 7/10/2013 12:40 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 10:47:16 -0700
> Walter Bright <newshound2@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>
>> On 7/10/2013 7:52 AM, qznc wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, 9 July 2013 at 20:39:30 UTC, Brian Rogoff wrote:
>>>> PS: That silhouette of the SR-71 at the point allocators are
>>>> mentioned sets a high bar for the design!
>>>
>>> I did not like that analogy at all. Have you seen the user
>>> interface of an SR-71?
>>>
>>> http://www.likecool.com/Gear/Pic/Spy%20Plane%20SR71%20Blackbird%20Cockpit/big/Spy-Plane-SR71-Blackbird-Cockpit.jpg
>>>
>>
>> I always love the utilitarian design of military cockpits. No logos,
>> no fake wood grain paneling, no styling, no color scheme, no
>> cupholder. All business.
>
> No cupholders is all fine and good until the sky gets clogged with
> ariel traffic and you have to put down your coffee.
>
> *Then* you'll regret not opting for the deluxe package!
>

Ok, I'll concede the cupholder! But I'm holding the line on the 8-track.

My 2cents: for D to be successful for the game development community, it has to be possible to mostly sidestep the GC or opt into a minimal one like ARC. Granted, this is a bit premature considering that OpenGL library support is still in alpha quality.

On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 at 21:05:32 UTC, Jonathan A Dunlap wrote:
> My 2cents: for D to be successful for the game development community, it has to be possible to mostly sidestep the GC or opt into a minimal one like ARC. Granted, this is a bit premature considering that OpenGL library support is still in alpha quality.

I've noticed that when you reply to a thread, you reply to the most recent response, irrelevant of context. This is a bit confusing to those of us who view the group in a threaded layout. For example here Walter is talking about not having inflight audio on a discontinued? military recon plane and then there's you listed as a replying to him, talking about ARC and GCs!

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 11:32:29PM +0200, John Colvin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 at 21:05:32 UTC, Jonathan A Dunlap wrote:
> >My 2cents: for D to be successful for the game development community, it has to be possible to mostly sidestep the GC or opt into a minimal one like ARC. Granted, this is a bit premature considering that OpenGL library support is still in alpha quality.
> 
> I've noticed that when you reply to a thread, you reply to the most recent response, irrelevant of context. This is a bit confusing to those of us who view the group in a threaded layout. For example here Walter is talking about not having inflight audio on a discontinued? military recon plane and then there's you listed as a replying to him, talking about ARC and GCs!

There's a long-standing bug in the mailing list interface to the forum that rewrites message IDs when it shouldn't, thus breaking threads. This problem has been irking me for a long time now, but it seems nobody is interested to fix it. :-(


T

-- 
There are four kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics.