Re: [Boost-users] Boost or Standard when there is the choice?

On 16 Feb 2014 at 13:04, Daniel James wrote:

On 15 February 2014 21:11, gast128 wrote:

...

...

my experience with Visual Studio where the Dinkumware implementation almost always outperforms or is similar to a Boost implementation

I had one big bad experience with std::unordered_map in the past, see topic 'Performance difference between std::unordered_map and boost::unordered_map' (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.c++.moderated/pFBjDiW6mW0).

According to Joaquin's recent benchmarks the recent standard implementations are generally faster than the boost implementation, which IMO is how it should be. I'm looking forward to Boost.Unordered's obsolescence.

http://bannalia.blogspot.co.uk/

It seemed to me that blog says libstdc++ is equally much faster and much slower than Boost depending on the test with a huge variance (sometimes 4x). libc++ is always slower, sometimes much slower. Dinkumware is usually faster than Boost, but not always. Besides, unordered_map<> while important is not the end of all of a STL quality of implementation. A 4x performance difference one can usually live with, while a 400x performance less so. Also, performance isn't everything, memory footprint is also very important. It's unfortunate that blog didn't show differences in unordered_map<> memory consumption. I'd warrant that Dinkumware's unordered_map<> is very, very good on memory footprint. For the other STLs, I wouldn't like to guess. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work in Ireland. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/