• 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
AussieSpoon

Using a pointer to point to a new object every frame

16 posts in this topic

Hello,

 

I have a Sprite class with a Vector2 pointer (member) that is used for a sprite's position. It's a pointer because I'm forward declaring it's class so it has to be a pointer.

 

So I want to take in a Vector2 (parameter) and then have the pointer point to the Vector taken in without creating a new object every frame and still have it be efficient. (Or is this the way to do it?). . But I'm unsure how to do it. All I can think of is:

 

void Sprite::SetPos(const Vector2 _position)						
{
	delete m_Position;
	m_Position = new Vector2(_position);
}	

 

 

 

But I'm pretty sure it doesn't work (or does it?)

 

Please tell me if that doesn't make sense. 

 

Thanks

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should definitely consider if you really want to have a single primitive thing like a vector to be a pointer. Why do you only have a forward declaration of the vector and not the full class?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You should definitely consider if you really want to have a single primitive thing like a vector to be a pointer. Why do you only have a forward declaration of the vector and not the full class?

For cleanliness reasons (I don't want 100 lines of code before the actual class

 

and I'm trying to use forward declarations so I don't have a whole bunch of #includes (it can slow down compile time, it's just a practice thing for me though) . 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's much much more wrong in that piece of code than just a plain pointer issue.

 

Besides the allocations you do every frame, there are also a lot more copy-constructor calls than you might expect.

Get rid of that; it may be just a Vec2 class but clean code doesnt hurt anyone.  use const references, or just pass the position as 2 parameters.

 

Next point is ... why do you want to use a pointer anyway? Sprite classes usually store their position for collision detection or rendering or whatever.

And you do realize that pointers take up memory as well, right?  Depending on the OS, the size is different. On Windows it's 4 byte if i remember correctly.

So basically you win nothing using your method.

 

best regards

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's much much more wrong in that piece of code than just a plain pointer issue.

 

Besides the allocations you do every frame, there are also a lot more copy-constructor calls than you might expect.

Get rid of that; it may be just a Vec2 class but clean code doesnt hurt anyone.  use const references, or just pass the position as 2 parameters.

 

Next point is ... why do you want to use a pointer anyway? Sprite classes usually store their position for collision detection or rendering or whatever.

And you do realize that pointers take up memory as well, right?  Depending on the OS, the size is different. On Windows it's 4 byte if i remember correctly.

So basically you win nothing using your method.

 

best regards

 

true. And talking about efficiency. Malloc/new are quite expensive in terms of computation cost (if you compare it to just decreasing the stack pointer) and also lead to heap fragmentation. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Note that you can still use assignment on an object that you have a pointer to (assuming the assignment operator wasn't made non-public or otherwise inaccessible). In your case you can do [tt]*m_Position = _position;[/tt] which would update the value without requiring a new allocation.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm lost...
//vector2.hpp
#ifndef VECTOR2_HPP
#define VECTOR2_HPP

class vector2{
//stuff...
};

#endif
//sprite.hpp
#ifndef SPRITE_HPP
#define SPRITE_HPP

#include "vector2.hpp"

class sprite{
private:
vector2 m_position;
};

#endif

What am I missing here? Edited by MarkS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm trying to use forward declarations so I don't have a whole bunch of #includes (it can slow down compile time, it's just a practice thing for me though) .
Sounds to me like you've had enough practice on how to do it, and now you could use some practice with when it's appropariate to use it.
This is not really an appropriate place to do it, and you certainly shouldn't be deleting and newing up a new one each time. At the very least, you'd use copy-assignment. Edited by iMalc
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok so based on what everyone is saying I'm just making things harder for myself (which is obvious). So I will just put the all the required #includes in the Sprite.h

 

The only question I have is how do I know when I should use forward declartions and when is it ok to #include in a header? (I know you can do the later whenever but I have heard people say try to avoid it) 

 

Thanks for all the replies. 

Edited by AussieSpoon
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use forward declaration when it will only ever need a pointer to the object (like passing a pointer reference, or writing a container or a linked list), the core functionality is privately implemented with structure that the user never sees (thus can't include the definition), or for circular references.

Most of these apply to coding in C, where there isn't always a better way to do it, but the first one must be stressed: forward declaration is doable if you only ever need a pointer to the object. Don't decide to only use a pointer just to use forward declaration, because that's backwards. Always judge whether or not you need the full definition or not based on how the interface will be designed; don't design the interface for one or the other.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I take the view that if I only need to use pointers or references in the including header, I use a forward reference. As soon as I find myself naturally needing anything more than a pointer or reference, I include the file unless I have a very good reason not to (circular dependancy etc).

Sometimes if the first case is true except for also needing an enumeration type or something else defined in the header, I'll consider splitting the header out.

Compile time is a serious consideration for me at work as a full rebuild of our source takes about 20 minutes for me, which is a long time to be paid to twiddle my thumbs and check email. However, even bearing this in mind, I'd not compromise code design or runtime efficiency in order to improve compile time with the abuse of forward declarations. Edited by Aardvajk
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If your SetPos function were to take _position as a const reference then as long as you keep the actual function implementation to the cpp file, then you can get away with just a forward declaration in the header file.
Oh, except that you would not be able to have m_Position as a member of that class - duh um ignore that. Edited by iMalc
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually, it's legal to declare a function that takes an object parameter by value with just a forward declaration. It's just not legal to call it or define it with only the forward declaration.

 

It was a joyous day when I figured that one out, my friend.

0

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