Re: [Boost-users] Query regarding interest in my submitting plf::colony to Boost

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] Query regarding interest in my submitting plf::colony to Boost
From: Soul Studios (matt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-07-15 20:36:44

> I lack time right now but I'm interested in trying your container in the
> context of implementations (mostly experimental) of components systems.
> I don't think annything related to multithreading should be done by such
> kind of container. Most high performance usage will be going through all
> the elements
> to transform them (if "alive") and as long as you provide iterators it
> can be done in parallel the user wants.

Yes, the iterators simply 'jump' over the erased element areas. It's 
very fast.
I am glad for your support, but I'm not sure why you think it shouldn't 
be used with multithreading - it follows the same rules for 
multithreading as the std:: containers ie. reads can be synchronous, 
writes must be serialized.

> There are cases where vector is not the right solution but yeah in my
> experience too it fits most use cases.
> Also: http://bannalia.blogspot.fr/2015/06/cache-friendly-binary-search.html
> I remember Stroustrup making the same statement at Going Native
> conference too, and it's also common observation in game devs circles
> (several other CPPcon talks talked about it too).

Yes, I feel it's a real shame that more developers don't understand 
these basic principles. In fact, one of the reviewers for the cppcon 
talk felt I didn't understand the "performance guarantees" of std:: 
containers - which is ironic, as what he means is "complexity 
guarantees", which in no way relate to performance, because of the 
aforementioned problem of cache saturation.