From:	qed AT chromatic DOT com (Paul Hsieh)
Newsgroups:	comp.lang.c++,comp.os.msdos.djgpp,rec.games.programmer
Subject:	Re: pointer to function ??
Date:	Wed, 25 Feb 1998 11:52:57 -0800
Organization:	Chromatic Research
Lines:	20
Message-ID:	<MPG.f5e1676dece867a9896b7@nntp.chromatic.com>
References:	<6c7ltq$ms1$1 AT o DOT online DOT no> <6c7u5l$mub$2 AT news DOT ox DOT ac DOT uk> <01bd4107$bba0dc60$77111111 AT jfisher DOT team17 DOT com> <2061CEBD9141D1118CEF080009DE1692B92235 AT sun DOT panews DOT press DOT net> <6cv62o$7sl$2 AT mark DOT ucdavis DOT edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host:	paulh.chromatic.com
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway:	from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp

spragg AT catbert DOT ucdavis DOT edu said:
> Paul 'Ozymandias' Harman (ozzy AT kasterborus DOT demon DOT co DOT uk) wrote:
> : The switch() statement is INFINITELY clearer and easier to understand. It's
> : just slower.
> 
> After doing some profiling on my game, I was completely surprised at the
> results.  Something like 80% or the time was spent drawing to the screen.
> And I was doing some pretty on-trivial vector math to keep a plane aloft.
> 
> My point is:  In cases such as this, code for readability and simplicity,
> not for speed.  The speed issue will (most likely) be trivial...

Uh ... I think your conclusion requires an understanding of how you were 
"drawing to the screen".  If putpixel() is your favorite screen drawing 
function call, I don't think your conclusion is warranted.

-- 
Paul Hsieh
email,finger: qed AT pobox DOT com
URL: http://www.pobox.com/~qed

- Raw text -