Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 10:48:47 09/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 22, 2003 at 08:36:46, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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++. No.
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.