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