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: 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 Precedence: bulk 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