Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:58:22 12/23/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2002 at 17:38:39, David Rasmussen wrote: >There are several possibilities: >1. MSVC6 is not the most compliant compiler on earth, so don't expect anything >2. Maybe you are using this the wrong way? If you wrap things in a class, you >will have to explicitly give the type argument when you use the static member >functions: > > int c=CUtil<int>::Max(a,b); > >Which is maybe not quite what you wanted. But that what you made :) >You might want to wrap the functions in a namespace instead. Yes, I looked over the STL, and I think I prefer the namespace, although that is cumbersome in its own way. >There are several >different ways of doing what you want to do. The best thing is for you to learn >how on your own. And if you really have to ask somebody, ask in comp.lang.c++, >not CCC :) LOL, those are the kind of answers i would have gotten in comp.lang.c++ those no good for nothing "start small" and "learn how to program" advises, somehow I find it very insulting :) Besides compared to the high number of posts containing little else than personal attacks, I think this is on-topic. For sure you people here can understand why I can't possibly accept 15% loss of speed, in comp.lang.c++ they would never understand that. Before you know it the whole thread has become a debate of whether the 15% is "worth it" or not :) > >Inlining hasn't been a practical problem with me, with MSVC. I just put the >relevant parts in a header file. > >C++ isn't slower for chess programming than C if used right. C++ can easily be >faster than C. The most important benefit though, is the type safety and the >superior designs possible. > >/David Yes, you don't have to convice me :) I have changed most of my macros to inlined functions, and have seen no drop in speed yet. -S.
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.