What do you think about this code in Objective-C that iterates through retain count and call release every iteration?

The author is trying to work around not understand memory management. He assumes that an object has a retain count that is increased by each retain and so tries to decrease it by calling that number of releases. Probably he has not implemented the "is also responsible to release it in the future." part of your understanding.

However see many answers here e.g. here and here and here.

Read Apple's memory management concepts.

The first link includes a quote from Apple

The retainCount method does not account for any pending autorelease messages sent to the receiver.

Important: This method is typically of no value in debugging memory management issues. Because any number of framework objects may have retained an object in order to hold references to it, while at the same time autorelease pools may be holding any number of deferred releases on an object, it is very unlikely that you can get useful information from this method. To understand the fundamental rules of memory management that you must abide by, read “Memory Management Rules”. To diagnose memory management problems, use a suitable tool: The LLVM/Clang Static analyzer can typically find memory management problems even before you run your program. The Object Alloc instrument in the Instruments application (see Instruments User Guide) can track object allocation and destruction. Shark (see Shark User Guide) also profiles memory allocations (amongst numerous other aspects of your program).

Since all answers seem to misread myRetainCount as [self retainCount], let me offer a reason why this code could have been written: It could be that this code is somehow spawning threads or otherwise having clients register with it, and that myRetainCount is effectively the number of those clients, kept separately from the actual OS retain count. However, each of the clients might get its own ObjC-style retain as well.

So this function might be called in a case where a request is aborted, and could just dispose of all the clients at once, and afterwards perform all the releases. It's not a good design, but if that's how the code works, (and you didn't leave out an int myRetainCount = [self retainCount], or overrides of retain/release) at least it's not necessarily buggy.

It is, however, very likely a bad distribution of responsibilities or a kludgey and hackneyed attempt at avoiding retain circles without really improving anything.

This is a dirty hack to force a memory release: if the rest of your program is written correctly, you never need to do anything like this. Normally, your retains and releases are in balance, so you never need to look at the retain count. What this piece of code says is "I don't know who retained me and forgot to release, I just want my memory to get released; I don't care that the others references would be dangling from now on". This is not going to compile with ARC (oddly enough, switching to ARC may just fix the error the author was trying to work around).