Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Add More efficient variable types

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    If you have 100+ variables in a single class, regardless of programming language, you have little background to call anything "unprofessional".

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Manoel.Neto View Post
      If you have 100+ variables in a single class, regardless of programming language, you have little background to call anything "unprofessional".
      You have no clue what you are talking about. If you ever worked on a medium sized project, solely menu umg contains more than 100. Go get a job

      Comment


        #18
        Let me explain WHY this doesn't matter, instead of joining this childish duel of insults...


        What you fail to understand is this:

        "Variable Types" in Blueprints are UObjects. Every single one of them.
        Suggesting such insignificant improvement for type sizes in Blueprints tells you aren't aware of that and this is why some people are posting these unnecessarily aggressive replies.

        Now take a look into...
        ​​​​​Runtime/CoreUObject/Public/UObject/NoExportTypes.h
        Runtime/CoreUObject/Public/UObject/UObjectBaseUtility.h
        Runtime/CoreUObject/Public/UObject/UObjectBase.h

        Then be shocked by how large an UObject actually is...

        The only place where something like that would matter is in low level networking layer, still, very specific cases.

        This is why your suggestion doesn't really make sense; that would change nothing.
        | Finite State Machine | Auto-Save Plugin | USQLite Plugin | Object-Pool | Sound-Occlusion | Anti-Cheat Plugin | Property Transfer Tool | Magic Nodes |

        Comment


          #19
          The only valid cause for variable size is when you are transmitting them over internet - mmo, for an example.

          But if you are talking about data size efficiency, it is very negligible in term of size and performance.
          For cpu performance, we are much more concerned about data alignment dan cache-miss etc

          Comment


            #20
            When I need to be memory-compact, I will sometimes use bytes, or bitfields.

            Both of these options are available in blueprints. You cannot get much more memory efficient than that.

            Comment


              #21
              Keep the thread on topic and polite, or it'll be locked. There's no need to insult anybody.

              Comment


                #22
                Efficient in what way exactly? Smaller datatypes don't equal faster code.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Stefan Lundmark View Post
                  Efficient in what way exactly? Smaller datatypes don't equal faster code.
                  They are advantageous for networking though. Either way, as I mentioned before, bytes and bitfields are available where these kinds of optimisations may want to be made.

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X