Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 17:07:13 09/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 20, 2003 at 15:58:03, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On September 15, 2003 at 19:28:39, Mathieu Pagé wrote: > >>In fact I have not yet implementing dynamic allocation. >> >>I'm pretty sure it's about too much constructor executing. >> >>I'd like to know if someone had ever experiments which overhead (%) should I >>expect when porting non-OO chess engine to OO ? >> >>Thanks for your help, i'will give a try to your idea when implementing dynamic >>allocation. >> >>Mathieu Pagé > >I'd expect zero overhead. then he's not using real OO features. As soon as you start using advanced stuff from object oriented programming, then overhead is *huge*. Let's assume for example a neat OO program that's allocating and deallocating objects of course. That's real neat OO programming. What junior team and others do in c++ is by no means what i call the real OO features. The real OO features are dead slow for chess :) >Dave
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.