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 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.