5 ms·
I'm don't get why this is surprising. NSArray takes a static dataset, and cannot be changed. NSMutableArray, by definition, can add or delete items. Wouldn't it
by rosenjon 16y ago
I'm don't get why this is surprising. NSArray takes a static dataset, and cannot be changed. NSMutableArray, by definition, can add or delete items. Wouldn't it make sense to store an array that is huge differently than one that is of small -> medium size? And since NSMutableArray must be able to change, it can't necessarily allocate the correct memory space upon alloc.
- tomwans 16y agoit is surprising because most people probably expect NSArray to just work like a plain array (see the naive C implementation)
- cubicle67 16y agoyes, so there'd be NSArray and NSImmutableArray
- rosenjon 16y agoI think the ability to combine C code in Obj-C allows for the usage of a huge legacy code base. However, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a design decision at some point that deliberately made it harder to port NextStep (NS) objects back to C. Creates lock-in...
- rosenjon 16y agoWhy'd I get down-voted for this?