Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hoptoad!tim
From: tim@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Maroney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.programmer
Subject: Re: Handles and Virtual Memory
Message-ID: <9438@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: 30 Dec 89 22:42:11 GMT
References: <9415@hoptoad.uucp> <18300010@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <18054@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Reply-To: tim@hoptoad.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
Organization: Eclectic Software, San Francisco
Lines: 27

In article <18054@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU> matthews@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
(Jim Matthews) writes:
>With virtual memory most of the rationale for
>relocatable blocks disappears.

As I've already pointed out, that's not true on the Mac.  It would be
true on a virtual memory system where the OS could grow an
application's memory when it is unable to allocate a block (as the
library routine malloc does using the system call sbrk on UNIX
systems).  However, on the Mac, VM does nothing to prevent fragmented
memory problems, because application memory spaces don't grow.

>It is backwards compatibility, not the
>advantages of handles, that keeps Apple from revamping the memory
>manager to match the new reality.  I've been programming the Mac for
>five years and I've learned how to deal with handles.  But I would
>trade that knowledge for a stationary memory scheme in a second.

I've been programming the Mac that long myself, with the result that I
no longer think of handles as a chore.  I kind of like them, they don't
send me tearing my hair, I rarely even have to devote any conscious
thought to them.  I don't understand why they are so reviled.
-- 
Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com

"I am of the opinion that my life belongs to the whole community, and as long
 as I live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can." -- Shaw