On Tuesday 21 July 2015 02:48:12 Kevin Kofler wrote: > IMHO, QList is the safest container to recommend to an inexperienced > programmer, because there are very few operations that have a suboptimal > complexity class. (Of course, abuse of contains or indexOf/lastIndexOf > where a QHash or QMap should be used is problematic, but that's true for > any list type.) Sure, the constant factor is often not optimal (though in > common cases such as the implicitly-shared Qt classes, the code is > actually supposed to do the exact same thing as QVector, so there > shouldn't be any difference in those cases), but it is much better than > hitting the worst case of QVector or QLinkedList because you just picked > what the > documentation told you without realizing the performance impact.
If you hit the QVector or QLinkedList worst-case, your profiler will pinpoint that reliably. No profiler will help you with the creeping pessimisation of using QList. > If we want the most efficient code at all costs, we need to write in > assembly, not C++. So you're comparing the cost of using QVector over QList with that of using assembly over C++? In which kind of universe is that a valid simile? Thanks, Marc -- Marc Mutz <[email protected]> | Senior Software Engineer KDAB (Deutschland) GmbH & Co.KG, a KDAB Group Company Tel: +49-30-521325470 KDAB - The Qt Experts _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
