Looks to me it's quite difficult and not really important in most games...

Do you use it?

What kind of question is this?

I'm assuming you mean new/malloc/+alloc? In which case, what answers did you expect other that "yes, always"?

Yeah I mean new and delete.

Couldnt you just make arrays "big enough"? I mean, rarely games have memory problems, much more often performance problems.

There's no reason dynamic memory need be any more performance-problematic than making lots of global arrays "big enough"...

There's no way to use inheritance in C++, or any Objective C without using dynamic memory, so that alone will swing most people.

Making lots of global arrays "big enough" has its own problems. Karl Berg's .obj loader took that approach, and it liked to make about 50MB per object. Then when you made a global array of "enough" objects (say, 20) then all of a sudden you're using more than a GB of RAM....

hmmm... ok...

looks like my games are way too simple for me to appreciate this stuff.

I'm voting "often" since I use arrays and stack objects when it's advantuous to do so (like I know that I'm going to need only 3 values for a vector, or I have an object that I won't be moving around), but I use heap memory otherwise.

OneSadCookie Wrote:There's no way to use inheritance in C++, or any Objective C without using dynamic memory, so that alone will swing most people.

I have C++ objects that use inheritance and virtual functions that are created on the stack rather than the heap. You use Type object(parameters) to create such object, and they work fine. Objective C, however, doesn't let you create such objects.

oh, inheritance will "work", you just can't use dynamic polymorphism without at least taking the address of the object, and taking the address of objects on the stack is asking for pain

Najdorf Wrote:Looks to me it's quite difficult and not really important in most games...

Do you use it?

Uh, actually, I use it a lot in whatever project I'm working on, be it a simple game, a tool, or a commercial level game.

OneSadCookie Wrote:oh, inheritance will "work", you just can't use dynamic polymorphism without at least taking the address of the object, and taking the address of objects on the stack is asking for pain

As in you store a bunch of subclasses as superclasses (for a container or what-not)? For that, pointers are definitely best. I usually only use stack/data objects for temporary objects or instance variables that are initialized only on the initialization of the class they are in.

I only use behemoth switch statements in my programming. Maybe one unsigned long long to track the state, and that's it.

-Jon

That must have been One Clever Switch , and One Very Well Packed Int

-> http://otee.dk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=510

How many man-hours did actually go into it?

d.

aarku Wrote:I only use behemoth switch statements in my programming. Maybe one unsigned long long to track the state, and that's it.

-Jon

Yeah, that's how REAL programmers do it.

davidhelgason Wrote:That must have been One Clever Switch , and One Very Well Packed Int

-> http://otee.dk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=510

How many man-hours did actually go into it?

d.

I'd estimate 100.

-Jon

GIgantic switch statements have their place, but I try to avoid them unless I think it's necessary (such as with data streams)