Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 19th Mar 2009 06:44 UTC, submitted by Moulinneuf
Permalink for comment 353862
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-01-18
You forgot one thing, the components of osx are way older than the GC in objective C they are proven well running code. So why change them just to get a speed hit introduced by GC...
GC does not do a single thing to improve security btw... it makes programs only more stable to some degree by taking over the memory freeing.
The biggest thing to add security is to add strings which have clear boundaries to a language. One of the reasons why C based programs are so inherently insecure are their handling of strings as glorified pointers. Sure there are routines for string copying which prevent the buffer oferflow issues introduced by such data structures, but languages like pascal, modula and others didnt have them in the first place...
GC does not help there either. Dont get me wrong I am a huge fan of GC I use it from day to day base and have been using it for more than a decade, but blaming Apple for not moving old legacy code over to new GC at a time the legacy code is stable and runs will is idiotic!