Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 19:53:03 02/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 14, 2000 at 22:18:18, Dan Newman wrote: >On February 14, 2000 at 15:25:24, Dave Gomboc wrote: > >>On February 14, 2000 at 14:38:14, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >> >>>On February 14, 2000 at 03:16:33, Dave Gomboc wrote: >>> >>>[big snip] >>>> >>>>How much faster do you think a switch is than using virtual dispatch? >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>What is a virtual dispatch? >>>José. >> >>What you get if you went OO-crazy and had a piece class with descendents for >>pawn, knight, bishop, etc., then called a member function. >> >>Dave > >I've tried to go OO-crazy once or twice, but the one thing that seemed to >get in the way and require some really hairy solution was pawn promotion. >The only thing I could think of doing was to maintain a pool of extra >promotion pieces and perhaps overload new and delete in the piece class to >get the new piece from this pool. But all that extra mechanism seemed like >too much... > >-Dan. I'm not suggesting that going OO-crazy is a good idea (hence my name: OO-crazy :-). I'm just wondering how much longer do you think a virtual dispatch would take than a standard switch statement. (Assuming there are no classes being loaded dynamically at run-time, there doesn't seem to be a reason that it should be any slower at all, in this particular case. Do C++ compilers usually know that classes at the bottom of an inheritance hierarchy are amenable to optimizations that would be unsafe on classes that are higher up?) Dave
This page took 0.02 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.