Some people would say that garbage collection is the most important advancement in computer science in the last 20 years.... http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2009/01/die-you-gravy-sucking-pig-dog.html
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:16 PM, David Bruant <[email protected]> wrote: > Le 02/02/2013 20:02, Brendan Eich a écrit : > > David Bruant wrote: >> >>> Interestingly, revocable proxies require their creator to think to the >>> lifecycle of the object to the point where they know when the object >>> shouldn't be used anymore by whoever they shared the proxy with. I feel >>> this is the exact same reflections that is needed to understand when an >>> object isn't needed anymore within a trust boundary... seriously >>> questioning the need for weak references. >>> >> >> Sorry, but this is naive. >> > It is, you don't need to apologize. > > > Real systems such as COM, XPCOM, Java, and C# support weak references for >> good reasons. One cannot do "data binding" transparently without either >> making a leak or requiring manual dispose (or polling hacks), precisely >> because the lifecycle of the model and view data are not known to one >> another, and should not be coupled. >> >> See >> http://wiki.ecmascript.org/**doku.php?id=strawman:weak_refs<http://wiki.ecmascript.org/doku.php?id=strawman:weak_refs>intro, >> on the observer and publish-subscribe patterns. >> > I guess manual dispose would make a lot of sense. A view knows own its > lifecycle, it involves adding observers in a bunch of places. When the view > lifecycle comes to an end for whatever reason, it only makes sense that it > removes the observers it added. My rule of thumb would be "clean up the > mess you made". > Memory leaks are bugs. Like off-by-ones. People should just fix their bugs. > Garbage collectors encourage the fantasy that people can forget about > memory. It is a fantasy. A convenient one, but a fantasy nonetheless. A > fantasy like "we can have a lifestyle that assumes oil is unlimited". > </naivety> > > <acceptance> > I guess it's just human nature, so weakrefs are pretty much unavoidable. > > If a weakref to a function is passed to Object.observe, will it auto-get > the function and unobserve automatically if the .get returns null? > > David > > ______________________________**_________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discuss<https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss> >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
