Is caching a child node in a script property any more efficient than calling $NodeName?

dotted

Coming from a C/C++ world, method calls like "get_foo()" generally are more expensive than fetching a class' field.

In machine code it's a read from instance_addy + field_offset vs a call method_addy (generally)

but godot is interpreted and node properties are a giant dictionary under the hood (I assume), so is

extends Node

var node_thing:Node = $Node

... self.node_thing.do_something()

more efficient than

$Node.do_something()

Calinou

Caching the node reference in a variable is more efficient, but you most likely won't notice the difference unless you use the reference every frame.

From most to less efficient: - Use onready var button = $Button at the top of the script and use button where you need it. - Use $Button directly. - Use get_node("Button") directly

PS: You don't need to use self to access properties in the current node, unless you want to call their setter methods defined using setget.

dotted

Thank you.

I understand about the usage of self. I added it there for clarity (at least in my head when writing).

I am only caching vars that get used every (physics!) frame plus I like semantic references to a (child) node rather than direct paths because it focuses on semantic meaning rather than the direct name, it is path change proofing and often much more concise to type.

as in: unready var target:Node = $Flopsy/Mopsy/CottonTail

(wait, no static typing? shame on you! var button:Button!!!!) :)