Reacties op: Boxing/Unboxing In .NET http://www.cumps.be/boxing-unboxing-in-net/ Living my life... Sat, 12 Dec 2009 22:49:53 +0100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Door: Llamar o no a GC.Collect directamente - la visión de un ingeniero de campo http://www.cumps.be/boxing-unboxing-in-net/comment-page-1/#comment-171 Llamar o no a GC.Collect directamente - la visión de un ingeniero de campo Mon, 23 Feb 2009 22:26:09 +0000 http://blog.cumps.be/boxingunboxing-in-net/#comment-171 [...] cuando utilizamos funciones o tipos que reciben object en vez del tipo específico. En el siguiente post se muestra cómo detectar y minimizar este patrón de [...] [...] cuando utilizamos funciones o tipos que reciben object en vez del tipo específico. En el siguiente post se muestra cómo detectar y minimizar este patrón de [...]

]]> Door: David Cumps http://www.cumps.be/boxing-unboxing-in-net/comment-page-1/#comment-167 David Cumps Sat, 05 Apr 2008 08:10:30 +0000 http://blog.cumps.be/boxingunboxing-in-net/#comment-167 I guess it clones the object when you pass it along without the ref. I wouldn't exactly know though, maybe it's done like that to prevent implicit changes from happening. The only thing why I wanted to know about boxing/unboxing is not to somehow 'abuse' it making my code less readable, but to understand how the old (non-generic) .NET classes worked internally. I guess it clones the object when you pass it along without the ref. I wouldn’t exactly know though, maybe it’s done like that to prevent implicit changes from happening.

The only thing why I wanted to know about boxing/unboxing is not to somehow ‘abuse’ it making my code less readable, but to understand how the old (non-generic) .NET classes worked internally.

]]> Door: samehgaber http://www.cumps.be/boxing-unboxing-in-net/comment-page-1/#comment-169 samehgaber Fri, 29 Feb 2008 11:08:03 +0000 http://blog.cumps.be/boxingunboxing-in-net/#comment-169 Dear Mr.David then waht is the added value I can send the variable by ref from the begining I used boxing to let value type act as refernce type without passing it by ref thanks a lot Dear Mr.David
then
waht is the added value
I can send the variable by ref from the begining
I used boxing to let value type act as refernce type without passing it by ref
thanks a lot

]]> Door: David Cumps http://www.cumps.be/boxing-unboxing-in-net/comment-page-1/#comment-168 David Cumps Fri, 15 Feb 2008 21:12:23 +0000 http://blog.cumps.be/boxingunboxing-in-net/#comment-168 The following will display 51: static void Main(string[] args) { object o = 50; AddThrowBox(ref o); Console.WriteLine(o); } public static void AddThrowBox(ref object o) { o = ((int)o) + 1; } Note the use of passing it by reference. The following will display 51:

static void Main(string[] args)
{
object o = 50;
AddThrowBox(ref o);
Console.WriteLine(o);
}
public static void AddThrowBox(ref object o)
{
o = ((int)o) + 1;
}

Note the use of passing it by reference.

]]> Door: SamehGaber http://www.cumps.be/boxing-unboxing-in-net/comment-page-1/#comment-170 SamehGaber Wed, 13 Feb 2008 12:55:54 +0000 http://blog.cumps.be/boxingunboxing-in-net/#comment-170 Dear Mr.David This program display 50 I thing it Should be 51 am I reghit ? Please help class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { object o = 50; AddThrowBox(o); Console.WriteLine(o); } public static void AddThrowBox(object o) { o=((int)o)+1; } } Dear Mr.David
This program display 50
I thing it Should be 51
am I reghit ?
Please help

class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{

object o = 50;
AddThrowBox(o);
Console.WriteLine(o);
}
public static void AddThrowBox(object o)
{
o=((int)o)+1;
}
}

]]> Door: David Cumps http://www.cumps.be/boxing-unboxing-in-net/comment-page-1/#comment-165 David Cumps Fri, 31 Aug 2007 13:08:32 +0000 http://blog.cumps.be/boxingunboxing-in-net/#comment-165 If you are multi threading and gain a 3second benefit those quickly add up, especially in AI scenarios where your calculations have to be done in specific time slices. And in the places I used this, this list isn't the only performance benefit of course, otherwise I'd agree, if you only used this and then would create some major inefficient algorithm, then it'd be pointless. But for places where you are tweaking everything, by using binary heaps for example instead of regular sorted lists, then a 3 sec (in my case this was running in 25 threads, which means a 75seconds gain) is quite significant. (7seconds vs 79seconds, not bad ;p) If you are multi threading and gain a 3second benefit those quickly add up, especially in AI scenarios where your calculations have to be done in specific time slices.

And in the places I used this, this list isn’t the only performance benefit of course, otherwise I’d agree, if you only used this and then would create some major inefficient algorithm, then it’d be pointless.

But for places where you are tweaking everything, by using binary heaps for example instead of regular sorted lists, then a 3 sec (in my case this was running in 25 threads, which means a 75seconds gain) is quite significant.

(7seconds vs 79seconds, not bad ;p)

]]> Door: zuraff http://www.cumps.be/boxing-unboxing-in-net/comment-page-1/#comment-166 zuraff Fri, 31 Aug 2007 07:39:04 +0000 http://blog.cumps.be/boxingunboxing-in-net/#comment-166 This is a good explanation of boxing/unboxing issue, but I don't like two things: --> Are you allowed to look with reflector at ArrayList implementation ?? I have doubts. --> Your benchmarking is not worth much if it ends up with time: 00:00:00.2915599, because in my opinion this is not enough long run and the result can be easily disturbed by other factors and system events. This is a good explanation of boxing/unboxing issue, but I don’t like two things:
–> Are you allowed to look with reflector at ArrayList implementation ?? I have doubts.
–> Your benchmarking is not worth much if it ends up with time: 00:00:00.2915599, because in my opinion this is not enough long run and the result can be easily disturbed by other factors and system events.

]]>