2 ms·
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 wh
by 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 agoBrushing 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.