[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sync.m
From: |
Richard Frith-Macdonald |
Subject: |
Re: sync.m |
Date: |
Sat, 27 Feb 2010 17:40:15 +0000 |
On 27 Feb 2010, at 17:15, David Chisnall wrote:
> Thanks for the report, I'll take a look. I don't think I'd tested
> @synchronized() with a class as an argument - it seems like a very strange
> thing to do when there are safe ways of achieving the same result with much
> less overhead.
Good point, but one which is probably not obvious to most people. Certainly a
new ObjC programmer is likely to think that anything which is part of the
'standard' must be good.
You are probably in a better position than anyone else to be aware of precisely
what parts of ObjectiveC-2 are most efficient or inefficient, and how they
compare to the traditional ways of doing things. Have you considered producing
a paper describing those differences? If we had them quantified we would have
a really good guide for people to know when to use new features and when to
avoid them (and when it really doesn't matter).
Just a suggestion ...
- sync.m, icicle, 2010/02/27
- Re: sync.m, David Chisnall, 2010/02/27
- Re: sync.m,
Richard Frith-Macdonald <=
- Re: sync.m, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2010/02/28
- Re: sync.m, Gregory Casamento, 2010/02/28
- Re: sync.m, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2010/02/28
- Re: sync.m, Gregory Casamento, 2010/02/28
- Re: sync.m, Gregory Casamento, 2010/02/28
- Re: sync.m, Richard Frith-Macdonald, 2010/02/28
- Re: sync.m, Riccardo Mottola, 2010/02/28