Hey guys,
I've recently started developing PPC software, and found myself quite hampered by the complete lack of the C++ STL (although most other C++ language features are available). As such, I was just wondering what C programmers use instead of std::vector - I do know that linked lists are one alternative, and static arrays can be used to some limited extent, but otherwise does one have to resort to plain 'ol dynamic arrays?
Just Google It. √
(\ /)
( . .)
c(")(") This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
I always have in the past. I wouldn't be surprized if there was some library out there with structs and functions to work with them - but it's probably best if you just go ahead and start getting used to the C style.otherwise does one have to resort to plain 'ol dynamic arrays?
use c++ MFC instead of C and you can use many MFC container classes.
I'm fairly certain that the std::vector is implemented using a dynamic array (can someone confirm/deny this?). A chunk of memory is allocated, and it gets used up as more elements are added to the vector. Once you run out of memory, a call to realloc() is made giving you room to add more elements. A linked list is better than a dynamic array if your vector has massive memory requirements. The reason is that a dynamic array requires contiguous memory whereas the linked list nodes can be allocated from random areas off the heap. Of course with a linked list implementation, you can never do random access in the form of V[x].
>>I wouldn't be surprized if there was some library out there with structs and functions to work with them
Right, but then I suppose it would pretty much be just a 3rd-party, less-friendly std::vector.
I'm asking this simply because I've heard that C and C++ have different ways of doing things, and I figured there might be a better alternative for scalable data structures supporting random access than dynamic arrays (from what I've heard, they're to be avoided wherever possible in C++).
Just Google It. √
(\ /)
( . .)
c(")(") This is bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
Yup. Nothing in the standard library.I suppose it would pretty much be just a 3rd-party, less-friendly std::vector.
http://www.infosys.utas.edu.au/info/...C/CStdLib.html
Hey -- I got yelled at yesterday for mentioning c++ on this C board -- and you made the same misstake?Originally Posted by Hunter2
Its not that c arrays don't work well in c++ -- they work just as well in c++ as they do in C. But its because std::vector relieves you of all the work of maintaining the allocation and reallocation of the arrays. std::vector is really not much more than a c++ wrapper for the C arrays.
Its not really all that hard to role your own version of std::vector if you just want the basics -- you could probably write one in just a few hours. WinCE doesn't support console operations, so you don't need to write output operators for fstream or iostream (neither of which are supported either).
C lacks any useful features for producing type-safe generic containers.
A std::vector does not use realloc but generally a placement-new since realloc does not properly destruct/construct objects.
std::vector works due to templates which produce code for each set of types you give the template. But the code to a vector is fairly straightforward and simple, anyone could write it.
In short, if containers are an important aspect of your application, is C really offering you useful tools for accomplishing your goal? If you miss C++ and STL so much, what is stopping you from using them?
> If you miss C++ and STL so much, what is stopping you from using them?
As he mentioned in the original post, his compiler (probably either eVC++ 3.0 or eVC++ 4.0) doesn't support STL.
