On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 17:48:42 -0800, NoUseForAName <n...@spam.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 00:49:04 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
On Mon, 03 Feb 2014 16:24:52 -0800, NoUseForAName <n...@spam.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 February 2014 at 00:49:04 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
That may be the case, but StackOverflow shows that ARC hasn't been
panacea in Apple land either. Way to many people don't understand ARC
and how to use it, and subsequently beg for help understanding
heisenleaks and weak references.
Your point? ARC addressed the latency issues, I never said it was
without challenges of its own.
ARC places a higher cognitive load on the programmer than a GC does.
Yes, it does. But the whole "not thinking about allocations" thing comes
at the often unacceptable cost of unresponsive apps.
So basically, all programmers who use GC's are too stupid to understand
ARC and should therefore either learn it because it is categorically
superior, or face the ridicule of their superior brethren? A tad
unrealistic there, most use a GC for purely practical reasons, namely
their workload is such that without the benefit of not having to worry
about memory they'd be even further behind, and subsequently spend even
more time away from family and loved-ones.
And
Android runs just fine with GC'ed apps, but ARC guys don't want to talk
about Google's successes there.
Google's success there is that demanding apps are written using the NDK.
Fair enough.
Ahem. Wrong. See: WinForms, WPF, Silverlight. All extremely successful
GUI toolkits that are not known for GC related problems.
Silverlight is dead and was an utter failure. WinForms and WPF have an
uncertain future. Neither has ever been used much in end user
applications.
And how certain are you of this? Because that assertion doesn't match the
data MS has collected.
I would also like to say that the typical .NET or Java developer has
lost all sense of what an efficient app feels like. E.g. someone who
works with Eclipse all day will of course consider about everything else
lightweight and snappy.
"I don't agree with their choices or preferences so they are wrong."
So that's why nearly every desktop app (for Windows at least, but
that's the overwhelming majority) that started development since .NET
came out is written C#?
That is simply not true. The set of widely popular Windows desktop
applications is basically .NET free. However, maybe you misunderstood me
because - I admit - my phrasing was unclear. When I said "desktop" I
meant end user desktop applications and games. Not enterprise/government
desktop CRUD apps which are forced upon office workers who cannot reject
them because of their horrible performance. I would not be surprised if
most of those are indeed written in .NET (if not written in Java).
So now you're tightening your definition of desktop app to something you
think you can win the argument on? Not a very powerful argument. I am
using the industry standard definition: A desktop app is anything that
runs on a desktop OS regardless of usage. Example, Visual Studio is both a
.NET/WPF app AND a desktop app.
only something like 3% of all apps in the Windows Store are C++/CX.
Does anybody actually use Windows Store? Frankly I do not know anyone
who does.
LOL, I tend to agree, but that's a strawman, and besides the point. I was
merely commenting on the code makeup of the Windows Store, not it's usage.
Server apps are written almost universally in .NET languages
Eh.. yes. I said myself that Java and Java-likes rule that domain.
Again, if D wants to compete with Java (or Microsoft's version of it)
there is nothing wrong with GC.
D absolutely DOES want to get compete here, otherwise we might as well
evict Andrei and Facebook right now.
--
Adam Wilson
GitHub/IRC: LightBender
Aurora Project Coordinator
