Christopher Coale wrote:
> Paul Herring wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Christopher Coale
>> <[email protected] <mailto:chris95219%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > its going to be a lot faster to work
>> > with pointers than to copy around data for every little thing you do.
>>
>> Or there's references.
>>
>> Or there's the fact that it /may/ make little difference to the speed
>> of the code if it's dealing with pointers to objects, references to
>> objects or the objects themselves.
>>
>> If you're dealing with creating/deleting objects in the innermost loop
>> that's running for 99% of the time when your application is running
>> for days, it will make a substantial difference.
>>
>> If, on the other hand, it's maybe a one off occurrence, or something
>> that might happen 0.1% of the time in your code (when most of the
>> other 99.9% is waiting for user input or disk I/O) then it really
>> doesn't matter.
>>
>> Which goes back to my first question -
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:23 PM, Paul Herring <[email protected]
>> <mailto:pauljherring%40gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Jos Timanta Tarigan
>> > <[email protected] <mailto:jos_t_tarigan%40yahoo.com>> wrote:
>> >> is there any point of creating a vector of pointer for efficiency
>> stuuff?
>> >
>> > Do you have an efficiency problem?
>>
>> Guestimating where bottlenecks exist is not a productive use of any
>> programmer's time - that's why profilers exist.
>>
>> And that's exactly what the rest of you are doing - guestimating. None
>> of you have any idea what the OP's program does, nor where it spends
>> most of its time - and I suspect the OP doesn't either; hence my
>> question.
>>
>> --
>> PJH
>>
>> http://shabbleland.myminicity.com/ind
>> <http://shabbleland.myminicity.com/ind>
>> http://www.chavgangs.com/register.php?referer=9375
>> <http://www.chavgangs.com/register.php?referer=9375>
>>
>>
> I come from a background of game development, so speed is always an
> issue for me. I tend to pick out the littlest of things, and make a
> big deal about them (such as using division when multiplication could
> be used, passing by-pointer instead of by-value, etc.) Storing a list
> of references is not a good idea because they will unintentionally
> lose their scope unless you have a reference to a global variable,
> which isn't usually the case. God gave us pointers (and C++ gave us
> "new" and "delete") for a reason - let's use them. :)
>
> On top of that, the stack really shouldn't be used for general storage
> anyways - that's what the heap is for.
>
(typo: passing by-value instead of by-pointer*)
