Should I use a unnamed Timer or DispatchasyncAfter to delay something 1 time?

Question

I can delay something in two ways (well maybe there are more ways):

   func delay(delay:Double, closure: @escaping ()->()) {
        DispatchQueue.main.asyncAfter(deadline: DispatchTime.now() + Double(Int64(delay * Double(NSEC_PER_SEC))) / Double(NSEC_PER_SEC), execute: closure)
    }

   //way 1:
    delay(delay: 1.0, closure: {
    })

   //way 2:
    _ = Timer.scheduledTimer(withTimeInterval: 1.0, repeats: false){ _ in 
    }

Is there any difference between those ways? Is way 1 better than way 2? I just want to add a delay of 1 second, which way should I use?

I prefer `asyncAfter(deadline: .now() + .nanoseconds(value)) { ... }` — Adrian Bobrowski, Aug 12 '17 at 17:41

Aditya Srivastava · Accepted Answer · 2017-08-12T17:46:33.753

8

DispatchQueue.main.asyncAfter is a GCD method and hence it is better in performance. Though NSTimer is a much more flexible where you can stop or pause the timer but I don't think you can cancel the DispatchQueue.main.asyncAfter or at least you have to write a wrapper.

Though in your case repeats is false it won't effect flexibility.

edited Aug 12 '17 at 17:46

answered Aug 12 '17 at 17:42

Aditya Srivastava

2,630
2
13
23

Yes, I know I can stop a timer. However, I explicit stated an unnamed timer, which I think can not be stopped (on the other hand, I do not want to stop it anyway). I just want to execute something after 1 second. You sure dispatch is better in performance? – J. Doe Aug 12 '17 at 17:44
@J.Doe Yes dispatch is better – Adrian Bobrowski Aug 12 '17 at 17:57
@J.Doe Yes for sure. – Aditya Srivastava Aug 12 '17 at 18:09

Should I use a unnamed Timer or DispatchasyncAfter to delay something 1 time?

1 Answers1