• Announcements

    • khawk

      Download the Game Design and Indie Game Marketing Freebook   07/19/17

      GameDev.net and CRC Press have teamed up to bring a free ebook of content curated from top titles published by CRC Press. The freebook, Practices of Game Design & Indie Game Marketing, includes chapters from The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, and An Architectural Approach to Level Design. The GameDev.net FreeBook is relevant to game designers, developers, and those interested in learning more about the challenges in game development. We know game development can be a tough discipline and business, so we picked several chapters from CRC Press titles that we thought would be of interest to you, the GameDev.net audience, in your journey to design, develop, and market your next game. The free ebook is available through CRC Press by clicking here. The Curated Books The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses, Second Edition, by Jesse Schell Presents 100+ sets of questions, or different lenses, for viewing a game’s design, encompassing diverse fields such as psychology, architecture, music, film, software engineering, theme park design, mathematics, anthropology, and more. Written by one of the world's top game designers, this book describes the deepest and most fundamental principles of game design, demonstrating how tactics used in board, card, and athletic games also work in video games. It provides practical instruction on creating world-class games that will be played again and again. View it here. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing, by Joel Dreskin Marketing is an essential but too frequently overlooked or minimized component of the release plan for indie games. A Practical Guide to Indie Game Marketing provides you with the tools needed to build visibility and sell your indie games. With special focus on those developers with small budgets and limited staff and resources, this book is packed with tangible recommendations and techniques that you can put to use immediately. As a seasoned professional of the indie game arena, author Joel Dreskin gives you insight into practical, real-world experiences of marketing numerous successful games and also provides stories of the failures. View it here. An Architectural Approach to Level Design This is one of the first books to integrate architectural and spatial design theory with the field of level design. The book presents architectural techniques and theories for level designers to use in their own work. It connects architecture and level design in different ways that address the practical elements of how designers construct space and the experiential elements of how and why humans interact with this space. Throughout the text, readers learn skills for spatial layout, evoking emotion through gamespaces, and creating better levels through architectural theory. View it here. Learn more and download the ebook by clicking here. Did you know? GameDev.net and CRC Press also recently teamed up to bring GDNet+ Members up to a 20% discount on all CRC Press books. Learn more about this and other benefits here.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Tispe

Passing objects by reference or by pointer.

7 posts in this topic

What is the preferred method and why?

Option 1:
[code]
void Render(DEVICEOBJECT &GraphicsDevice)
{
GraphicsDevice.StartRender();

// Render

GraphicsDevice.EndRender();
}
[/code]

Option 2:
[code]
void Render(DEVICEOBJECT *GraphicsDevice)
{
GraphicsDevice->StartRender();

// Render

GraphicsDevice->EndRender();
}
[/code]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Short answer: there is no preferred method.

There are lots of "schools" favoring one over the other. Sometimes people decide between the nullity behavior: A reference cannot (well, it can, but it's a rather uncommon way to happen) be null, whereas a pointer can be null. Also, you can assign to a pointer, but you cannot reassign a reference.

Other than that, the two are functionally equivalent.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Passing by reference allows the compiler to optimize better. Passing by pointer can lead to reloading of a pointer over and over. In general, there isn't a preferred method, like the poster above said. However, if you don't need a pointer, then it is a good habit to get into to pass by reference.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A personal preference for readability is to always use a reference unless the passed value/object is going to be changed. As a result references are always const and when reading code like

doSomething(a, b, &c)

you immediately see that c is going to be modified by the function.

Of course the other approach mentioned above has advantages, too. It means whenever you see a function taking a pointer, null is going to be a valid value.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It just comes down to style / convention, but:[quote name='wqking' timestamp='1317099899' post='4866310']Use reference-to-const for read only parameter.
Use pointer for out parameter.
Use pointer-to-const for read only parameter when it allowed to be NULL.[/quote]^^ In my experience, this is a very common coding style, which enhances readability as demonstrated by Trienco.

Also, if you were using option #2, it should include an assertion to validate the pointer before use:[code]void Render(DEVICEOBJECT *GraphicsDevice)
{
assert( GraphicsDevice )
GraphicsDevice->StartRender();[/code]
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Any parameter that is optional (can accept a NULL value) is a pointer.
Parameters that are required are references.

If it is an output, do not make it const, otherwise do, whether pointer or reference.

Exceptions are arrays, or pointers to buffers, which are always passed as pointers.


L. Spiro
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Our conventions at work are pretty simple:

[list][*]Value when copies are cheap (mostly meaning intrinsic 32 or 64 bit types)[*]Const reference when copies are not cheap[*]Const pointer when optional (exception for const char*)[*]Pointer when mutable by the function itself[*]Conformant array for any buffer with a known size (optionally const), where the size is passed as an additional parameter[/list]

I like it.

My own style in personal projects generally uses references over pointers for mutables, but that's just a quirk. I also tend to prefer container classes to raw arrays, so I don't use the conformant array syntax. So on a few subtle points I don't think there's really a right or wrong answer, but there [i]are[/i] some fundamentals to keep in mind:

[list][*]Don't copy unless you need copy semantics (or if you're passing a small intrinsic type)[*]Be const-correct[*]Try to make it easy to tell what a function will do with a parameter just by reading its signature[/list]

IMHO if you can hit all three points, any style is legit.
2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0