asarazan

Does this mean we have to get rid of Speechless at Google IO?

I'm really hoping somebody at Oculus/HTC/Microsoft sees this and wants to develop it, because I agree the hardware industry needs to step up its game to make this a reality.

Android Lead from Capital One SF here. I did and it was one of the best hires I ever made. He's the most enthusiastic and motivated person on my entire team, and is also amazing at UI and performance optimization. I've been begging them to send me more candidates ever since.

Did this get killed? I can't find it on the list

I failed pretty hard. 1/5

If "most cases" means the average small team (2-3 developers), then you probably have a point. Once you have more than that, I think it's absolutely necessary to enforce code style in this way.

Thanks for reading the article so thoroughly.

Yeah this is the general idea we went with. We did our best to synchronize around it, but unfortunately we can never have total control, which necessarily introduces race conditions.

I would imagine this is what leads to the 0.4% crash rate I mentioned at the top of the article :-(

I was going for more of a sly joke with the title, but it appears to have not gone over well. I now regret my decision.

I agree. Would be nice to stop having to worry about this crap at every turn when developing on iOS.

We do this for various other reasons (clearing possibly corrupted state, etc), but we've never uploaded the statistics to the servers. We may begin doing this in the future.

We've been using Crittercism in the past and recently switched to Crashlytics, unfortunately memory crashes are one of the few exceptions (hah) to the rule, as they are SIGKILLs from the OS.

Another commenter recommended touching a file at launch and at sleep to track untraceable crashes, which we do for various other reasons, but don't upload the stats. We may begin doing this.

I won't argue too strongly on this, as you're far more knowledgable about it than I am.

However, imo the intention and semantics behind a call like CFMakeCollectable implies a transfer of ownership to an external system. A newbie Apple coder could be forgiven for thinking it would still transfer ownership in RC environments, just to the autorelease pool instead of a collector. In all likelihood this is what happened. An intern got at the code and didn't know the details about GC.

Obviously the point stands that this interpretation is well-documented to be false, but its naming is definitely misleading.

Double edit: I see from your edit that some of my basic assumptions about CFMakeCollectable were wrong, having never actually worked with it. My bad.