David Emerson wrote:
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Martin Schreiber wrote:
That happens with every reallocmem() with FPC memory manager so using a
getmem() block instead of a dynamic array has no advantage in this
Maybe a good old linked list implementation is the best performer then.
Back to the
Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Martin Schreiber wrote:
That happens with every reallocmem() with FPC memory manager so using a
getmem() block instead of a dynamic array has no advantage in this
Maybe a good old linked list implementation is the best performer then.
Back to the Pascal of the 80's and
Martin Schreiber wrote:
On 12/05/2016 10:52 AM, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
I love dynamic arrays and I never found that performance was an issue.
Agreed.
I find this big nonsene, but everybody his opinion. Take the time to study and profile the issue in
detail or keep using dynamic arrays.
On 12/05/2016 10:52 AM, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
>
> I love dynamic arrays and I never found that performance was an issue.
>
Agreed.
Martin
___
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinf
Am 2016-12-04 um 14:09 schrieb Graeme Geldenhuys:
> On 2016-12-04 11:30, Martin Schreiber wrote:
>> That happens with every reallocmem() with FPC memory manager so using a
>> getmem() block instead of a dynamic array has no advantage in this
> Maybe a good old linked list implementation is the bes
In our previous episode, Graeme Geldenhuys said:
> If I use an array to hold a list of say Integers. Is there any serious
> performance penalty for resizing (growing) the dynamic array as I add
> items. My point being, I don't know the number of elements I'll need
> beforehand.
Yes, ordered insert
On 2016-12-04 14:48, Adriaan van Os wrote:
> It depends on the memory manager you use,...
Wow, that's some interesting information there. Thanks for sharing.
> There is nothing 80's or 90's about intelligent and advanced data structures.
I simply meant, back in the day when I learned Turbo Pasc
Martin Schreiber wrote:
On 12/04/2016 11:28 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
Hi,
If I use an array to hold a list of say Integers. Is there any serious
performance penalty for resizing (growing) the dynamic array as I add
items. My point being, I don't know the number of elements I'll need
beforeha
On 2016-12-04 14:10, Dmitry Boyarintsev wrote:
> You'll also need to store the actual size somewhere next to the dynamic
> array, since you can no longer rely on length()
How I'm longing for Java now. Java has a 101 different container classes
as standard. And if that was not enough, you can now
On Sun, Dec 4, 2016 at 5:28 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys <
mailingli...@geldenhuys.co.uk> wrote:
> If I use an array to hold a list of say Integers. Is there any serious
> performance penalty for resizing (growing) the dynamic array as I add
> items. My point being, I don't know the number of elements I'
On 2016-12-04 11:30, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> That happens with every reallocmem() with FPC memory manager so using a
> getmem() block instead of a dynamic array has no advantage in this
Maybe a good old linked list implementation is the best performer then.
Back to the Pascal of the 80's and 90'
On 12/04/2016 11:39 AM, Martin Schreiber wrote:
> On 12/04/2016 11:28 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> If I use an array to hold a list of say Integers. Is there any serious
>> performance penalty for resizing (growing) the dynamic array as I add
>> items. My point being, I don't know the
On 12/04/2016 11:28 AM, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> Hi,
>
> If I use an array to hold a list of say Integers. Is there any serious
> performance penalty for resizing (growing) the dynamic array as I add
> items. My point being, I don't know the number of elements I'll need
> beforehand.
>
The prob
13 matches
Mail list logo
