Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » Community » PR, media coverage, articles and documentation » Second CodeProject article
Second CodeProject article [message #45823] Mon, 11 January 2016 09:33 Go to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13984
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/1070601/Parallel-QuickSo rt-with-Uplusplus-CoWork

Anybody to join? Smile

Mirek
Re: Second CodeProject article [message #45831 is a reply to message #45823] Mon, 11 January 2016 14:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
koldo is currently offline  koldo
Messages: 3372
Registered: August 2008
Senior Veteran
Good article.

You are rather humble as you are actually more than just "a coauthor of U++ framework" Smile.


Best regards
Iñaki
Re: Second CodeProject article [message #45835 is a reply to message #45831] Mon, 11 January 2016 15:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13984
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
koldo wrote on Mon, 11 January 2016 14:32
Good article.


Thanks. It is actually kind of fun to write these. And it really shows (in the traffic).

I would like to release at least one per month and have about 20 U++ related articles by the end of year.
Re: Second CodeProject article [message #45836 is a reply to message #45835] Mon, 11 January 2016 20:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Klugier is currently offline  Klugier
Messages: 1077
Registered: September 2012
Location: Poland, Kraków
Senior Contributor
Hello Mirek,

I think you should attached links to your article on Code Project in External External resources - http://www.ultimatepp.org/www$uppweb$extlinks$en-us.html.

Sincerely,
Klugier
Re: Second CodeProject article [message #45849 is a reply to message #45836] Wed, 13 January 2016 11:26 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1405
Registered: September 2007
Ultimate Contributor
Those benchmarks are really impressive and hard to beat. Great job!

Not sure that raw performance will help us convert a lot of new people over to U++ in this day and age, but it is good to have.

PS: I'm interested on how the benchmark looks with long strings (512+ characters) in the vector? Especially in the std one. Did they switch their implementation over to move internal elements?
Re: Second CodeProject article [message #45851 is a reply to message #45849] Wed, 13 January 2016 13:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13984
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 13 January 2016 11:26
Those benchmarks are really impressive and hard to beat. Great job!

Not sure that raw performance will help us convert a lot of new people over to U++ in this day and age, but it is good to have.

PS: I'm interested on how the benchmark looks with long strings (512+ characters) in the vector? Especially in the std one. Did they switch their implementation over to move internal elements?


Seriously, std::sort vs Sort with long strings is not as clear win (if I remember well, about 2x).

Anyway, both GCC and MSC now has moving std::string, but it is till much slower than plain nice memcpy... Smile (I am speaking about e.g. Vector::Insert here).
Re: Second CodeProject article [message #45852 is a reply to message #45849] Wed, 13 January 2016 14:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13984
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 13 January 2016 11:26

Not sure that raw performance will help us convert a lot of new people over to U++ in this day and age, but it is good to have.


Speaking about this, I think I argument should start here:

http://codegolf.stackexchange.com/questions/44278/debunking- stroustrups-debunking-of-the-myth-c-is-for-large-complicated -pro/44393
Re: Second CodeProject article [message #45853 is a reply to message #45851] Wed, 13 January 2016 15:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
cbpporter is currently offline  cbpporter
Messages: 1405
Registered: September 2007
Ultimate Contributor
mirek wrote on Wed, 13 January 2016 14:43
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 13 January 2016 11:26
Those benchmarks are really impressive and hard to beat. Great job!

Not sure that raw performance will help us convert a lot of new people over to U++ in this day and age, but it is good to have.

PS: I'm interested on how the benchmark looks with long strings (512+ characters) in the vector? Especially in the std one. Did they switch their implementation over to move internal elements?


Seriously, std::sort vs Sort with long strings is not as clear win (if I remember well, about 2x).

Anyway, both GCC and MSC now has moving std::string, but it is till much slower than plain nice memcpy... Smile (I am speaking about e.g. Vector::Insert here).

Oh, BTW, now that you have brought it up: I have totally borrowed the idea of memcpy inside of container implementation from you.

Hope you don't mind Smile.
Re: Second CodeProject article [message #45856 is a reply to message #45853] Wed, 13 January 2016 17:03 Go to previous message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 13984
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 13 January 2016 15:10
mirek wrote on Wed, 13 January 2016 14:43
cbpporter wrote on Wed, 13 January 2016 11:26
Those benchmarks are really impressive and hard to beat. Great job!

Not sure that raw performance will help us convert a lot of new people over to U++ in this day and age, but it is good to have.

PS: I'm interested on how the benchmark looks with long strings (512+ characters) in the vector? Especially in the std one. Did they switch their implementation over to move internal elements?


Seriously, std::sort vs Sort with long strings is not as clear win (if I remember well, about 2x).

Anyway, both GCC and MSC now has moving std::string, but it is till much slower than plain nice memcpy... Smile (I am speaking about e.g. Vector::Insert here).

Oh, BTW, now that you have brought it up: I have totally borrowed the idea of memcpy inside of container implementation from you.

Hope you don't mind Smile.


It is open source, after all, is not it... Smile

So, you have started your own framework?

Mirek
Previous Topic: U++ on ohloh.com
Next Topic: Third CodeProject article
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Jun 12 18:14:12 CEST 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01512 seconds