3 ms·
Hopefully if you're using C++, it's because the performance implications matter. And hopefully, you're nitpicking on the implementation of the mapping algorithm
by khedoros1 10y ago
Hopefully if you're using C++, it's because the performance implications matter. And hopefully, you're nitpicking on the implementation of the mapping algorithm for the same reason. Third, that's that only good reason to be close to the metal anymore: that there's a requirement for some particular speed target, and none of the "good enough" solutions are good enough.
Otherwise, why wouldn't I build my program in Python or something? If selecting the right data structure just based on Big-O notation will get me to a good enough solution, digging down is just a waste of time, like saving microseconds when network latency is 1000 times the problem.
- pklausler 10y agoThere are other reasons to use C++ besides performance, and other reasons to not use Python besides performance.
- khedoros1 10y agoSure, but it's one of the biggest go/no-go reasons. Preexisting codebase, available libraries suitable to the problem domain, platform limitations, desire to obfuscate code, developer experience, desire for speed of development, and whatever else I'm forgetting would be other reasons to choose a particular set of technologies. But the comment I was responding to was about performance implications, and whether or not development was "close to the metal", so my response was too (using C++ and Python as examples of lower-abstraction and higher-abstraction languages).
- harry8 10y agoThere are other reasons that are at least 9 times in 10 (probably more) completely dominated by a performance justification on occasions where people actually have the choice rather than having it made for them.