From: Ben Young (ben_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-09 02:49:06
Personally, as a Boost user I would rather have these speed increase
rather than a clean implementation as having shared_ptr etc I don't neeed
to develop my own, so I don'y need a clean reference implementation. I see
Boost as being a set of very useful extensions to the standard library and
would expect stl implementation to be as fast as possible, even at the
expense of readability, as you can never know where your classes could be
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Beman Dawes wrote:
> At 02:36 PM 10/7/2002, Dave Harris wrote:
> FWIW (which isn't much), I agree with Dave.
> If an extremely minor tweak to the code produces a small improvement, well,
> go for it. But it must meet a whole bunch of conditions: doesn't in any way
> reduce readability or maintability, works uniformly for many or all
> compilers, doesn't rely on problematic or undefined behavior, etc.
> If those conditions aren't met, the optimization would have to produce at
> least a factor of 2 improvement before I'd even think about it. If it was
> really ugly, even a factor of 2 isn't worth it for most applications. There
> may be exceptions for some specific applications, such as numerics code
> used in inner loops.
> For a lot of Boost code, however, a clean reference implementation is way
> more important than minor speedups.
> All IMO, of course.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk