[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone
From: |
Nicholas \"Indy\" Ray |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone |
Date: |
Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:13:36 -0700 |
On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 3:54 AM, felix winkelmann <address@hidden> wrote:
> This is so crazy. As if GC'd memory management would be less safe
> the manual memory management. The absurdity is breathtaking.
I doubt the choice is for safety, in general manually managed
applications in general make less allocations, and don't have to spend
cycles for GC. In a language that doesn't support memory compaction,
such as Obj-C, on a single address space machine I could imagine how
fragmentation could cause a lot of problems. Additionally, both more
allocations and more Collections use more cycles and thus more energy.
Apple does a lot to try to maximize the amount of battery life. Which
is why they have made such decisions as no background processes.
Indy
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, felix winkelmann, 2009/04/13
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Alex Queiroz, 2009/04/13
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Elf, 2009/04/13
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Alex Queiroz, 2009/04/13
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Elf, 2009/04/13
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Alex Queiroz, 2009/04/13
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Elf, 2009/04/13
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Rick R, 2009/04/13
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone,
Nicholas \"Indy\" Ray <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, felix winkelmann, 2009/04/14
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Nicholas \"Indy\" Ray, 2009/04/14
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, felix winkelmann, 2009/04/15
- Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Nicholas \"Indy\" Ray, 2009/04/15
Re: [Chicken-users] IPhone, Shawn Rutledge, 2009/04/09