Author: Bo Persson
Date: 23:35:03 09/15/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2003 at 19:28:39, Mathieu Pagé wrote: >In fact I have not yet implementing dynamic allocation. No, why should you? The number of boards and pieces are known in advance. :-) > >I'm pretty sure it's about too much constructor executing. Constructors are no overhead if the do useful work, like initializing objects. > >I'd like to know if someone had ever experiments which overhead (%) should I >expect when porting non-OO chess engine to OO ? It depends on what you mean by OO. If you use the "fundamentalist" view "everything is dynamic and polymorphic", the overhead will be huge. If you use the "pragmatist" view that use of classes makes a good abstraction, you might even run faster. > >Thanks for your help, i'will give a try to your idea when implementing dynamic >allocation. > >Mathieu Pagé Bo Persson
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.