4 ms·

If it does than you are doing something incredibly wrong. I'm really starting to doubt the intelligence of HN.

• cageface 16y ago
  s/than/then/g
  • jawngee 16y ago
    @cageface really? you can't refute my point, so you instead try to correct my spelling to make yourself look smarter?
    • cageface 16y ago
      If you choose to attack someone's intelligence instead of presenting a factual counterargument then it behooves you to get your spelling right. So again, how can you be sure that the reference you just released isn't the last live pointer to some huge datastructure that now has to be torn down reference-by-reference?
      • jawngee 16y ago
        Like I said, if that happens you are doing something incredibly wrong. It is your error. It's not the language, it's bad programming, bad architecture, bad whatever. If you release an object and it gets torn down, it means you didn't increment the ref in the right place. And I don't get how release/retain is such a difficult concept to grasp. If you don't think you can deal with it, should this be your profession?
        • cageface 16y ago
          Brushing aside the unnecessary and uncalled for rudeness... If you release the last pointer to a complex datastructure that has no other references, you certainly should hope it gets "torn down" = deallocated. If that object happened to contain a lot of other objects they will each in turn have to be released. Obviously your main code execution path is going to halt while this graph is walked and released. Maybe Jimbokun is right that you can control this better in a ref counting scheme than in a typical GC but you're hardly immune from the problem.
• deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]