Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:51:36 11/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2002 at 16:38:37, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On November 19, 2002 at 16:31:15, Russell Reagan wrote: > >>You need to clearly define what the hell you want then. Vincent too. You two sit >>there and demand proof or evidence without providing any of your own, and then >>when someone provides what you ask for you say "That's not what I asked for." or >>"that isn't valid" or whatever the excuse of the day is. Make it clear what you >>want, or don't ask. >> >>Sounds an awfully lot like what goes on at r.g.c.c to me. People responding >with stupid things like, "No..." with no "evidence" to support it. > >I'm not providing any evidence because I've never made a statement >as to what is generally the best datastructure to use. > >I don't think it's a good idea to do so without having substantial >evidence that you are right, and I don't have it. And from what I >have seen, neither have any of the other posters in this thread. > >-- >GCP I have never made such a statement either. I _specifically_ have said, many times, that on 32 bit machines, bitmaps seem to "break even". On 64 bit architectures, they have a speed advantage. That should be intuitively obvious to anyone that has ever studied computer architecture. It was the basis for developing 32 bit machine when many said "16 is enough". It is now the basis for developing 64 bit machines when many still say "32 is enough". I have done _both_ approaches. I have found some things harder to do in bitmaps. Some easier. I don't believe _either_ is inherently better as a data structure, until you factor in 64 bit architectures. Then data structures that directly use the added bits of a 64 bit architecture will gain more than data structures that don't. That is both plain to see and simple to understand why it is true...
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.