Yes, GC can be faster in some scenarios. I'll never get into a dispute about what's faster... legitimate arguments can be made both ways.
My point about profiling the exact user experience still stands. I can exactly instrument the hotspots in my code and fix them as needed – I can disable ARC, I can avoid autorelease pools. (Or I can add my own autorelease pools or manual retains, preventing large objects from being freed until I'm outside of a hotspot.) Importantly, I know what's being profiled is exactly what will be run by my users. I can't say the same about GC code, since the collector must be free to reap whenever and however it decides. Heck, depending on the runtime, I can't even be certain which GC algorithm will be used by my customers.
I appreciate the control refcounting gives me, and I love that ARC makes writing refcounted code almost as painless as writing GC code without the loss of control. I like being able to test and profile exactly what my users will run.
Comments
Yes, GC can be faster in some scenarios. I'll never get into a dispute about what's faster... legitimate arguments can be made both ways.
My point about profiling the exact user experience still stands. I can exactly instrument the hotspots in my code and fix them as needed – I can disable ARC, I can avoid autorelease pools. (Or I can add my own autorelease pools or manual retains, preventing large objects from being freed until I'm outside of a hotspot.) Importantly, I know what's being profiled is exactly what will be run by my users. I can't say the same about GC code, since the collector must be free to reap whenever and however it decides. Heck, depending on the runtime, I can't even be certain which GC algorithm will be used by my customers.
I appreciate the control refcounting gives me, and I love that ARC makes writing refcounted code almost as painless as writing GC code without the loss of control. I like being able to test and profile exactly what my users will run.