Re: Why is [nil aMessage] a no-op?
Re: Why is [nil aMessage] a no-op?
- Subject: Re: Why is [nil aMessage] a no-op?
- From: "Michael Ash" <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 22:13:36 -0400
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:51 PM, David Wilson <email@hidden> wrote:
> I think the question that arises, and a primary reason for preferring
> one over the other, is how much of a risk one thinks that scenario is.
> Personally, I prefer (even as an end user) that the program simply die
> and have done with it rather than having more insidious faults that
> may not be initially visible.
I agree with what you say, but I feel compelled to point out that in
seven years of using Mac OS X and no doubt hundreds of ObjC-based
programs, I have encountered many which crashed but not one which
silently corrupted my data. It certainly is preferable to crash, but I
haven't seen any indications that ObjC's approach to this question
makes programs written in it any more prone to silent corruption than
any other language.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Cocoa-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list.
Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden