On 10/17/11 3:20 PM, "ext Frans Klaver" <[email protected]> wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 2:55 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I'd say let's adjust the data structures to what's needed, but not spend >> time now on reimplementing the classes. At least not as long as we have >> other, more important things to get fixed. > >Sounds reasonable to me. > >On a related but slightly different note: when removing code >redundancy is an issue to some it would at least be cool if some of >the classes not yet using QSharedData(Pointer)? would actually start >using it (QString to name one). You know it makes sense somehow ;). It doesn't always make sense. While QSharedDataPointer is safe, you have to be careful with it if you want to optimize for performance to avoid calling detach() too often. The same thing is true in other places in Qt: It's not always the best idea to implement Qt using Qt. For some core things, hand-crafted data structures are often better. As an example, we managed to squeeze around 30% out of the load times for QML by replacing some of our generic containers with data structures that were written and optimized for the use case at hand. And that's not because the containers we have are bad, but simply due to the fact that they are general purpose. Cheers, Lars _______________________________________________ Qt5-feedback mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt.nokia.com/mailman/listinfo/qt5-feedback
