On Wednesday, March 27, 2013 7:00:08 AM UTC-4, Seungbeom Kim wrote:   
      
   > You may be concerned this involves a deallocation and an allocation   
   > even when not necessary, but this has to happen many times in a   
   > tight loop to actually affect the performance, which I don't see   
   > very common.   
      
   You may not see it [the cost of allocation/deallocation] very often,   
   but it's pretty common to have to worry about it in the work I do.   
      
   We avoid using new and delete in the data processing phase of our   
   codes (it's OK in initialization) because when we do, our profiler   
   results show them being major CPU users.  We avoid std::string for the   
   same reason.  For that matter, we discovered that deleting a null   
   pointer had a pretty significant cost.   
      
   In fact, we use fixed-length arrays instead of std::vector if we know   
   the maximum length in advance, again, for performance reasons.[*] When   
   an extra 30% of performance can save you having to buy hardware that   
   costs a programmer's salary for a year, you care about all the stuff   
   that C++ gurus say doesn't matter any more.   
      
   [*] I really wish C++ would incorporate C99 variable-length arrays.   
   They would have _really_ simplified some sections of my code.   
      
      
   --   
         [ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]   
         [ comp.lang.c++.moderated.    First time posters: Do this! ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)