Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 05:36:46 09/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 21, 2003 at 22:16:30, Dave Gomboc wrote: >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 In which case the code is in fact C code and not c++.
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.