The curley bracket!

[Banfa]

With the speeds of PC processing these days I wouldn't think this is a big factor. Do you any have proof?

I suspect that it isn't faster at all once the optimiser has got it's hands on it.

[Killer42]

With the speeds of PC processing these days I wouldn't think this is a big factor.

Argh! Evil !!

This sort of "who cares, PCs are fast these day" reasoning is responsible for a lot of stupid coding and user frustration.

You don't happen to work for MS, by any chance?

[Ganon11]

I prefer:

if (databaseGotUpdated)
{   updateCount++;
    clearDisplay();
    renderNewTable();
}

I like:
- The style of indentation
- camelHumpStyle names rather than with_under_scor es
- ++
- Functions in the style verbAdjectiveNo un() in plain English

What does everyone else think ? ( "what a pedant !" ? )

Not sure I like including code on the same line as the opening bracket, but otherwise we agree.

[AricC]

Argh! Evil !!

This sort of "who cares, PCs are fast these day" reasoning is responsible for a lot of stupid coding and user frustration.

You don't happen to work for MS, by any chance?

No I don't work for MS but tell me how ++ is that much faster than +=?

[Banfa]

This sort of "who cares, PCs are fast these day" reasoning is responsible for a lot of stupid coding and user frustration.

Actually this is a very good point, I once had to spend 2 weeks going through the code of an embedded project with 16Mbyte RAM searching for ways to save memory because people with this sloppy style had used it all up and the project need space for development.

[Killer42]

Actually this is a very good point, I once had to spend 2 weeks going through the code of an embedded project with 16Mbyte RAM searching for ways to save memory because people with this sloppy style had used it all up and the project need space for development.

Ah, code bloat - ya gotta love it!

[acoder]

Argh! Evil !!

This sort of "who cares, PCs are fast these day" reasoning is responsible for a lot of stupid coding and user frustration.

You don't happen to work for MS, by any chance?

I agree, M$ == Code Bloat. Takes up lots of space and requires lots of RAM.

[Banfa]

I agree, M$ == Code Bloat. Takes up lots of space and requires lots of RAM.

It isn't just MS, programming on todays PC's can get anyone into sloppy habits if they are not paying attention to what they are doing.

[Ganon11]

Like Me. O.o

Using simple programs to learn hasn't exactly pounded home efficiency.

[AricC]

Actually this is a very good point, I once had to spend 2 weeks going through the code of an embedded project with 16Mbyte RAM searching for ways to save memory because people with this sloppy style had used it all up and the project need space for development.

I wouldn't call using += 1 over ++ sloppy at all and I still haven't seen any proff ++ is that much better.

[Banfa]

I wouldn't call using += 1 over ++ sloppy at all and I still haven't seen any proff ++ is that much better.

I never said it was you are reading my comments out of context to the reply they where made to and the original comparison was between ++i and i++ not i++ and i += 1;

Personally I still maintain that once the optomiser has put its oar in they should all be more or less the same.

[Killer42]

It isn't just MS, programming on todays PC's can get anyone into sloppy habits if they are not paying attention to what they are doing.

That's true. M$ is just the poster-child.

[Killer42]

Last edited by Banfa : Today at 02:46 AM. Reason: Removing naughty '

I hope it was removed humanely and sent to a good home. Otherwise the Apostrophe Preservation Society will be after you.

[AricC]

I never said it was you are reading my comments out of context to the reply they where made to and the original comparison was between ++i and i++ not i++ and i += 1;

Personally I still maintain that once the optomiser has put its oar in they should all be more or less the same.

Perhaps I was, but that is what I've gathered from reading previous posts is that there is some sort of big difference between the two.

[Banfa]

Perhaps I was, but that is what I've gathered from reading previous posts is that there is some sort of big difference between the two.

Hmm only if you believe the poster of the original comment that ++i is more efficient than i++ because of a copy but there are many cases where there would be no need of a copy and many more where optimiser would come along and optimise away the inefficiency.

I do not think the argument for ++i over i++ holds water.