[Home] [Groups] - Message: [Prev in Group] [Next in Group]
20512: Re: TECH: STL / Heaps, etc. (was: [MUD-Dev] TECH DGN: a few mud server design questions (long))
[Full Header] [Plain Text]
From: Caliban Tiresias Darklock <caliban@darklock.com>
Newsgroups: nu.kanga.list.mud-dev
Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2001 20:55:46 -0700
References: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] <-newest
Organization: Kanga.Nu
On Sat, 4 Aug 2001 10:19:38 +0100, "Adam Martin" <ya_hoo_com@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@kanga.nu
https://www.kanga.nu/lists/listinfo/mud-dev