@drewmccormack Why it's not a great post: http://blog.metaobject.com/2013/10/should-you-use-coredata.html …
-
-
@mpweiher@drewmccormack For evidence, you can look at what Apple does vs says. Are Mail, Aperture, Contacts sync, etc. all “corner cases”?0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
@mjtsai Not really. Some teams in Apple are surprisingly ignorant of Apple's own tech. What do they use instead? XML? Rest my case.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
@drewmccormack Article says that you should use Core Data because Apple uses it for apps, and Apple knows best. But where are said apps?0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
@mjtsai@drewmccormack a generalised framework can never be as fast as specialised because the general case cannot make certain assumptions.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
@drewmccormack@mjtsai agreed about time / resources required. It's very much a question of deciding whether the pros outweigh the cons.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
@drewmccormack It’s possibly convenient, but not high perf, to bring all objects into RAM before operating on them.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
@mjtsai Squeak does it. 1.2M objects in 500ms. My XML parser also does 1M objects in ~800ms (Mac). Better with a *good* binary rep.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@mpweiher Right. Core Data is probably at least an order of magnitude slower, and its objects are heavier.
-
@mjtsai Yeah, leaning strongly towards 2 orders. 1KB/obj when writing, order of magnitude on read access. Dict fetches OTOH are FAST!0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Marcel Weiher
Michael Tsai
Drew McCormack
Milen Dzhumerov