When I said "If you were doing the same thing in C/C++" I meant hanging onto a pointer after freeing the memory. Which you can do in both languages and which will cause you no end of problems later on.
Whoosh - he was talking about how you could allocate objects on the stack and have them be released automatically as you exit the scope. Java always allocates objects from the heap, but the reference can be on the stack and when you exit the scope the reference disappears and the object is now eligible for garbage collection.
Greyfox doesn't understand how garbage collection works in Java is what it comes down to.
Yeah, it only took him 20 years to figure out that he needed source code management.
You just create objects on the stack, let them handle their memory management internally and automatically clean up when they go out of scope.
You mean like this in Java?
public void myfunc()
{
MyObject localObj = new MyObject();
}
When you exit the scope it's eligible for garbage collection. Unless you hang onto a reference it's not going to hang around. If you're leaking memory or resources in Java you're hanging on to them somewhere. If you were doing the same thing in C/C++ and you free the object while keeping the pointer around you're just creating a Heisenbug.
The fact that *EVERY* line of kernel code has to deal with those kind of issues is a byproduct of the monolithic kernel design, not what the code itself is doing.
I started off as a Unix kernel programmer in the late-80's, did a lot of stuff on supercomputers and went to Apple to work on Copland (micro-kernel). I/O subsystems can make good use of OO abstractions. OS X's IO subsystem is written in C++.
It's really time to look at microkernels again. There are some performance issues, but many of those will get smoothed out as they're hit and engineered around.
And btw, I notice that, with 99 comments in, nobody else has bothered to actually provide you with the links to the official Apple iOS developers or Android developers docs, api, tools, etc. I at least showed enough respect for you to expect you to benefit from them. Was I wrong? Only time will tell.
You know, if he can't use Google he's really bad off.
Back in 1990 if you were an experienced C developer and hadn't looked seriously at OO languages it was understandable. In 2014, if you haven't at least dabbled with C++, Java or C# I think it shows a definite unwillingness to learn. So that's why the OP is getting "condescending" answers like "just hire someone"
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
You don't know Apple, or iOS developers. Dominant over ObjC within two years (and by the end of next year that prediction will probably seem ridiculously conservative).
Oh really? Drink some more koolaid. Remember how long it took to lay Carbon to rest. And the Cocoa APIs are still incomplete in many areas. Then take a look back at all the new programming languages and frameworks Apple has introduced over the years and then shot in the head. Dylan? OpenDoc?
I'd say it's 50/50 whether or not Swift will get enough traction to continue on.
If you've spent this long avoiding modern languages why start now? If you're not interested in object oriented design you're just going to spend your whole time cussing at the frameworks. Just hire a contractor.
That's my question. I've wound up with it installed plenty of times because it's the default on too many distributions but use?
At least with terminals you could arrange them how you like. Ah, the joys of 3 VT100s on your desk.
Untrue. I've had the X server hang up and I've logged in via the network and killed it and restarted it. I can't restart systemd without restarting the whole system. Furthermore, I don't run the X server on our mission critical machines.
The point being that Apple didn't adopt Objective-C just to be weird. Next used Objective-C to build NextStep and there's certain things in Objective-C that made NextStep moderately cool.
I actually worked at Apple, on the operating systems team, around that time. Apple was in no position to be arrogant in 1997 and wasn't actively looking for ways to be incompatible. Today, that's a very different story.
Those would be called "antivirals"
When a police officer is around you, you are being surveilled - by the police officer. If you're doing anything illegal in front of the police, expect to get in trouble. Police wear uniforms and are easy to spot. That's very different from having concealed cameras everywhere.
Sorry, old Unix guy here. My first reaction was "What the F is pkexec and why is it running setuid?"
Yet another way to execute arbitrary privileged executables is yet another potential security hole. This dumb thing is apparently part of the "Free Desktop" but it's depended on by all kinds of stuff including the fricking RedHat power management. What's wrong with plain old sudo?
Anyone can make an omelet with eggs. The trick is to make one with none.
