Re: CopyCStringToPascal
Re: CopyCStringToPascal
- Subject: Re: CopyCStringToPascal
- From: Bryan Pietrzak <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:57:41 -0500
On Jun 16, 2005, at 2:44 PM, Markus Hitter wrote:
Let me rephrase: How would you stop using people functions like this
in new code, how would you encourage them to eventually replace their
code with more modern APIs
Easily... new APIs use CFStringRefs. End of story. Look at the APIs
added to the HIToolbox lately... all CFStringRef. That's fine. That's a
good thing.
and how would you justify maintenance costs due to added complexity in
API, (Apple's) code and compiler?
This can't seriously be a concern for some Pascal and C string utility
functions which were written once ages ago and are just handful of tens
of thousands of Mac OS X APIs.
Here's a better response.
Which do you find "more expensive" ?
Apple's costs to keep these particular string utility functions (note
I'm not talk all the deprecated APIs, just these C and Pascal string
APIs which I have a hard time believing won't be useful for quite some
time to come).
Many third party developers costs to reimplement these yet again.
Retest them. And have the code take up more disk and memory space.
(Apple's will be mapped once for all apps :).
It's a small thing yes, but why deprecate something that is needed by
many, will likely be needed for quite some time, if not forever,
doesn't impact performance and has little or no "cost" to Apple?
Just to prove some Unicode point? It's not like we don't use Unicode
where appropriate, but we also use C and Pascal strings where
appropriate.
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden