348
votes

Learning Objective-C and reading sample code, I notice that objects are usually created using this method:

SomeObject *myObject = [[SomeObject alloc] init];

instead of:

SomeObject *myObject = [SomeObject new];

Is there a reason for this, as I have read that they are equivalent?

8
I didn't even know that was possible! All the material i've read pretends like the new keyword doesn't exist!Jonathan
Actually "new" is not a keyword in Objective-C, but NSObject implements a class method "new" which simply calls "alloc" and "init".Don McCaughey
Jonathan, that's exactly what prompted my question. They may be functionally equivalent but [[alloc] init] is clearly the dominant idiom.willc2
I think Apple (from what I can remember from one of their iTunes Stanford lectures) just encourages you to use alloc init instead so that you can understand the process of what's happening. They also don't use new a lot in their sample code, so alloc init seems to be just a general good habit that Apple try to promote.PostCodeism

8 Answers

297
votes

There are a bunch of reasons here: http://macresearch.org/difference-between-alloc-init-and-new

Some selected ones are:

  • new doesn't support custom initializers (like initWithString)
  • alloc-init is more explicit than new

General opinion seems to be that you should use whatever you're comfortable with.

142
votes

Very old question, but I've written some example just for fun — maybe you'll find it useful ;)

#import "InitAllocNewTest.h"

@implementation InitAllocNewTest

+(id)alloc{
    NSLog(@"Allocating...");
    return [super alloc];
}

-(id)init{
    NSLog(@"Initializing...");
    return [super init];
}

@end

In main function both statements:

[[InitAllocNewTest alloc] init];

and

[InitAllocNewTest new];

result in the same output:

2013-03-06 16:45:44.125 XMLTest[18370:207] Allocating...
2013-03-06 16:45:44.128 XMLTest[18370:207] Initializing...
52
votes

+new is equivalent to +alloc/-init in Apple's NSObject implementation. It is highly unlikely that this will ever change, but depending on your paranoia level, Apple's documentation for +new appears to allow for a change of implementation (and breaking the equivalency) in the future. For this reason, because "explicit is better than implicit" and for historical continuity, the Objective-C community generally avoids +new. You can, however, usually spot the recent Java comers to Objective-C by their dogged use of +new.

9
votes

Frequently, you are going to need to pass arguments to init and so you will be using a different method, such as [[SomeObject alloc] initWithString: @"Foo"]. If you're used to writing this, you get in the habit of doing it this way and so [[SomeObject alloc] init] may come more naturally that [SomeObject new].

8
votes

One Short Answere is:

  1. Both are same. But
  2. 'new' only works with the basic 'init' initializer, and will not work with other initializers (eg initWithString:).
4
votes

I am very late to this but I want to mention that that new is actually unsafe in the Obj-C with Swift world. Swift will only create a default init method if you do not create any other initializer. Calling new on a swift class with a custom initializer will cause a crash. If you use alloc/init then the compiler will properly complain that init does not exist.

3
votes

For a side note, I personally use [Foo new] if I want something in init to be done without using it's return value anywhere. If you do not use the return of [[Foo alloc] init] anywhere then you will get a warning. More or less, I use [Foo new] for eye candy.

1
votes

If new does the job for you, then it will make your code modestly smaller as well. If you would otherwise call [[SomeClass alloc] init] in many different places in your code, you will create a Hot Spot in new's implementation - that is, in the objc runtime - that will reduce the number of your cache misses.

In my understanding, if you need to use a custom initializer use [[SomeClass alloc] initCustom].

If you don't, use [SomeClass new].