Raw Loops for Performance?

a year ago

The author joined a new project and started making minor improvements, including replacing raw loops with C++20 ranges.
A comparison was made between using raw loops with `push_back` and C++20 ranges (`std::ranges::transform`) for transforming data.
Performance benchmarks showed that raw loops with `emplace_back` and `reserve` are faster than ranges, but ranges offer better readability.
The author concludes that while ranges may be slightly slower, the difference is negligible in most real-world scenarios, and readability should be prioritized unless performance is critical.

Hasty Briefsbeta