4 ms·

Ever tried removing element from a middle of vector?

• alexchamberlain 13y ago
  Yes, the world does not end. For small objects and `vector`s, it's probably quicker, because 1) you found it quicker due to cache locality and 2) there were no system calls to release memory.
  • burstmode 13y ago
    So, what you say is: I don't care to implement an efficient solution, because the CPU cache will fix it anyway. That way of thinking is well known as "The Java way of problem solving" (TM)
    • mihai_ionic 13y ago
      That's not what he said, and his solution is not "inefficient." CPUs have no emotions; if it runs faster due to cache, it's simply the better solution. For the use case required by ZeroMQ, it's faster in all cases, because swap-with-last and shrink is O(1). Sure, if CPUs didn't have caches, a list might be faster. Do you see where this is going? The C way of solving problems consists of adding one more level of indirection (ever heard of 3-star C programmers?), because it becomes more efficient asymptotically that way. Nevermind the hidden factor of 100-1000 due to pipeline stalls and cache misses. Fortunately not all C programmers think that way.
    • alexchamberlain 13y ago
      My solution is more efficient in the normal case, ignoring the asymptotic case that never happens.
• deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]