TECH: STL / Heaps, etc. (was: [MUD-Dev] TECH DGN: a few mud server design questions (long))
Caliban Tiresias Darklock
caliban at darklock.com
Mon Aug 6 20:55:46 CEST 2001
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:19:38 +0100, "Adam Martin" <ya_hoo_com at yahoo.com>
wrote:
> surely the point is that with all templates and standard libraries
> there is a high barrier to using them the first time, but once you
> are familiar with them (i.e. have used the various bits a few
> times) you can make new programs much faster (to code, and one
> would hope usually to run too, in the case of libraries) than you
> could using your own hacks, otherwise what is the point?
To solve hard problems. If your problem is not hard, the library may
be overkill. A stack of 100 integers, for example, could be
implemented with STL:
#include<stack>
using namespace std;
stack<int> s;
Or with straight C++ types:
int a[100];
int i=-1;
Let's look at how these work.
Push something on the stack.
s.push(x);
a[++i]=x;
Pop something off the stack.
s.pop();
--i;
Is the stack empty?
if(s.empty()) ;
if(i==-1) ;
What's on the top of the stack?
s.top();
a[i];
How much stuff is on the stack?
s.size();
i+1;
The STL version has some great features, *if* you have a harder
problem. If your stack may contain thousands of objects, or you
need a lot of stacks, or the object on the stack is more complex
than a simple int, STL will make things a lot easier. A stack of
parse trees, for example, would almost certainly be better
implemented with STL. But for this particular problem, STL is just
plain too much -- and the straight C++ version is a great deal
smaller and faster.
_______________________________________________
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev
More information about the mud-dev-archive
mailing list