How would i ordenate strings for alphabetical output? Considering that i have like 600 names to order, i would like the fastest way of doing that. Note: I canīt change the RetrieveName function.Code:string NameOne = RetrieveName( 1 ); //John string NameTwo = RetrieveName( 2 ); //Alisson string NameThree = RetrieveName( 3 ); //Alice Cooper
Thank you.
Add the strings to a vector and then sort it.
My best code is written with the delete key.
I mean, isnīt it too slow and dont it consume much memory? i have like 600 items to sort and after i have to callThis would take forever (i think)Code:SetNameByIndex( NameTwo, 4 )
600 names won't probably take more than 1 second.
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.
Just put them in a std::vector and sort them with std::sort.
You ever try a pink golf ball, Wally? Why, the wind shear on a pink ball alone can take the head clean off a 90 pound midget at 300 yards.
>I mean, isnīt it too slow and dont it consume much memory?
With only 600 short strings? Maybe if you're using an abacus.
My best code is written with the delete key.
hehe thats because im truly concerned about performance in my program hehe
Unless "truly slow" is < 100 MHz than it shouldn't matter. If it's running Windows you should be all right.Why don't you try it? That's the only way to find out. If you don't have access to your friend[']s['] computer[s] then run it on yours, time the result, and divide it by however much faster your computer is than (his|hers|theirs).
[offtopic] I think "In a world without gods neither masters it is just us and our machines" should be "In a world without gods or masters it is just us and our machines". Just my opinion. [/offtopic]
dwk
Seek and ye shall find. quaere et invenies.
"Simplicity does not precede complexity, but follows it." -- Alan Perlis
"Testing can only prove the presence of bugs, not their absence." -- Edsger Dijkstra
"The only real mistake is the one from which we learn nothing." -- John Powell
Other boards: DaniWeb, TPS
Unofficial Wiki FAQ: cpwiki.sf.net
My website: http://dwks.theprogrammingsite.com/
Projects: codeform, xuni, atlantis, nort, etc.
Provided you use an O(nlogn) or better algorithm, a computer will be able to sort them in the blink of an eye. std::sort is the way to go.Originally Posted by Scarvenger
hehe thats because im truly concerned about performance in my program hehe
>Provided you use an O(nlogn) or better algorithm
Actually, with such a small number of items, even the time for a quadratic algorithm wouldn't be noticeable on any machine from the last ten years or so. In fact, if you were writing your own sort, I would recommend something better suited to smaller sets than an O(N logN) algorithm (such as shell sort) because there's less overhead in the actual process. However, std::sort is generally a better choice due to sheer convenience.
My best code is written with the delete key.
