Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 19:16:30 09/21/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2003 at 20:07:14, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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 You don't need complicated inheritance hierarchies for a chess program. 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.