IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Theory and Practice of Programming Forum / Was trying to avoid virtual functions
Post #58,876
by Arkadiy
Picture of Arkadiy
10/23/02 1:57:40 PM
Reply
New Was trying to avoid virtual functions
This stuff is potentially in a tight loop.
--

We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
Post #58,877
by deSitter
Picture of deSitter
10/23/02 2:01:17 PM
Reply
New ROFL - "This prog might actually do something needing speed"
-drl
Post #59,020
by tuberculosis
Picture of tuberculosis
10/24/02 4:22:55 AM
Reply
New Write the program you want
then optimize it.

Not the other way around.

The number of people who need to write performance critical code is at least 3 orders of magnitude smaller than the people who think they need to write performance critical code.

I am out of the country for the duration of the Bush administration.
Please leave a message and I'll get back to you when democracy returns.
Post #59,043
by Arkadiy
Picture of Arkadiy
10/24/02 9:31:49 AM
Reply
New I know, I know.
I have always heard that theory that templates are as powerful for generic programming as virtual functions. I decided to test that statement. In the end, templates worked out just fine, the code is no less elegant than it would be if I used an interface. And the code is not _really_ in a tight loop at the moment. In my defense I can only say that the code that's being replaced with the scheduler used to take 80% of CPU time, so I wanted the replacement to be very, very tight. May be tighter than it needs to be.
--

We have only 2 things to worry about: That
things will never get back to normal, and that they already have.
     I've learned something new in C++ today! - (Arkadiy) - (36) - Oct. 21, 2002, 03:36:00 PM EDT
         Criminy - (deSitter) - (2) - Oct. 21, 2002, 03:37:58 PM EDT
             No, just what I needed :) -NT - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Oct. 21, 2002, 06:55:35 PM EDT
                 No Way! - (deSitter) - Oct. 21, 2002, 08:14:22 PM EDT
         Re: I've learned something new in C++ today! - (wharris2) - (1) - Oct. 21, 2002, 11:47:12 PM EDT
             Crawl? Run, run! -NT - (Arkadiy) - Oct. 22, 2002, 09:37:34 AM EDT
         Don't forget your extra space - (tuberculosis) - (30) - Oct. 22, 2002, 06:37:58 AM EDT
             Re: Don't forget your extra space - (Arkadiy) - (29) - Oct. 22, 2002, 09:40:20 AM EDT
                 Fear the syntax error messages... -NT - (admin) - Oct. 22, 2002, 10:37:44 AM EDT
                 No, wait, I need more context. - (tuberculosis) - (25) - Oct. 23, 2002, 07:21:44 AM EDT
                     Wow! - (Arkadiy) - (24) - Oct. 23, 2002, 10:05:52 AM EDT
                         Grammar police - (drewk) - (18) - Oct. 23, 2002, 10:30:54 AM EDT
                             No - (deSitter) - Oct. 23, 2002, 10:38:00 AM EDT
                             Spelling police - (Arkadiy) - (16) - Oct. 23, 2002, 11:38:00 AM EDT
                                 Arrrgh! - (drewk) - (15) - Oct. 23, 2002, 11:40:55 AM EDT
                                     Instantiation has been in use for a long time... - (admin) - (14) - Oct. 23, 2002, 11:44:12 AM EDT
                                         Careful, keep this up and you'll be agreeing with ... - (drewk) - (13) - Oct. 23, 2002, 12:11:23 PM EDT
                                             Re: Careful, keep this up and you'll be agreeing with ... - (admin) - (12) - Oct. 23, 2002, 12:15:22 PM EDT
                                                 Then I hereby nominate ... objectification - (drewk) - (11) - Oct. 23, 2002, 12:22:27 PM EDT
                                                     Re: Then I hereby nominate ... objectification - (admin) - (10) - Oct. 23, 2002, 12:24:56 PM EDT
                                                         He meant "objectifaction" - (deSitter) - (1) - Oct. 23, 2002, 12:27:28 PM EDT
                                                             Re: He meant "objectifaction" - (admin) - Oct. 23, 2002, 12:29:04 PM EDT
                                                         Not as a noun, though - (drewk) - (7) - Oct. 23, 2002, 01:31:13 PM EDT
                                                             Objectification IS a noun, you knob. -NT - (admin) - (6) - Oct. 23, 2002, 02:21:20 PM EDT
                                                                 Umm, well, yeah, but ... uhhh - (drewk) - (1) - Oct. 23, 2002, 02:43:50 PM EDT
                                                                     Welll... - (admin) - Oct. 23, 2002, 02:44:36 PM EDT
                                                                 You've been using that a lot lately. - (static) - (3) - Oct. 24, 2002, 02:01:53 AM EDT
                                                                     Well I know where *I* got it from - (ben_tilly) - Oct. 24, 2002, 03:11:38 AM EDT
                                                                     My (obvious) guess: Peter. - (CRConrad) - Oct. 24, 2002, 07:54:05 AM EDT
                                                                     Dunno. - (admin) - Oct. 24, 2002, 09:07:48 AM EDT
                         I'm not saying its good. - (tuberculosis) - (4) - Oct. 23, 2002, 11:59:02 AM EDT
                             Was trying to avoid virtual functions - (Arkadiy) - (3) - Oct. 23, 2002, 01:57:40 PM EDT
                                 ROFL - "This prog might actually do something needing speed" -NT - (deSitter) - Oct. 23, 2002, 02:01:17 PM EDT
                                 Write the program you want - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Oct. 24, 2002, 04:22:55 AM EDT
                                     I know, I know. - (Arkadiy) - Oct. 24, 2002, 09:31:49 AM EDT
                 Ow ow ow ow ow ow - (static) - (1) - Oct. 23, 2002, 07:18:46 AM EDT
                     Run away! run Away! - (boxley) - Oct. 23, 2002, 09:21:16 AM EDT

i only type in lowercase because i hate capitalism.
96 ms