|
Maybe, but this things makes the code unclear and dificults the scalability.
Anyway you are right in the fact that it is faster, innecesarily and almost insignificaly faster
|
|
|
|
|
But when working with microcontrollers performance and memory management are important, aren't they?
And many small things might lead to a noticeable gain in that.
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to say that. Sometime had to do weird trick, that looked really ugly, just to save program memory  (PIC16F84)
I do not fear of failure. I fear of giving up out of frustration.
|
|
|
|
|
You're absolutely right. You ought to write it more concise:
if((error == 0)
#ifdef SENSAR
|| (V_OK == 0)
#endif
)Much cleaner now!
|
|
|
|
|
I would have write it that way.
#ifdef SENSAR
if((error == 0) || (V_OK == 0))
#else
if((error == 0))
#endif
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree, it is easier to read that way.
Just because the code works, it doesn't mean that it is good code.
|
|
|
|
|
still has double parentheses on the 2nd case. That will slow the compiler massively 
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't try to optimise, just to make it easier to read.
Patrice
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.” Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Such messie code is dangerous as gasoline. One error and everything blows up.
I wont accept such stuff from my collegues. 
Press F1 for help or google it.
Greetings from Germany
|
|
|
|
|
Doing some code clean up and found this gem
if ( flag && test_fn() )
{
if ( test_fn() )
{
}
}
test_fn() isn't particularly expensive ... but really?
|
|
|
|
|
So presumably test_fn looks something like this:
private int _testCallCount = 0;
public bool test_fn()
{
_testCallCount++;
return (_testCallCount & 1) == 0;
}
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
At least it is not
if ( ((flag == true) && (test_fn() == true)) == true)
{
if ( test_fn()== true )
{
}
}
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
What if test_fn() does change a global such that, when the next time it runs, may not return true?
That makes perfect sense to call a function after already calling validating it.
I've set a flag that, when true, also calls a function within an If statement.
I once-again call the function to see if we're still good to go, especially in a parallel processing app that can change datapoints before another process gets to it.
I then recursion into the function during the function to ensure that no externals have changed while it is in process, for it calls additional functions.
And, if you believe I do all this, then hire me at $1 million a year and I'll gladly implement this into yer project!
|
|
|
|
|
MacSpudster wrote: I once-again call the function to see if we're still good to go
You really should be using locking :P
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH A#@RFJ\c^JPL>;"[, /|+&WLEZGc
AFXc!L<br />
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_ADEPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKQUFK[MUKs$GwU#QDXBER@CBN%
R0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia> -----------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
I totally agree 
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
May be this poor guy think that check test_fn() 1 time is not True enough, and he do it twice just for sure 
In code we trust !
|
|
|
|
|
The application I'm newly tasked with maintaining is a large heap of WTF, but I picked this problem out to share because it demonstrates the supreme barrier to understanding that the prior developer(s) have constructed:
#define __2__
#if __2__
#else
#endif
  
Actually, there are many comments all over the code, but of the sort that tell you absolutely nothing:
if (max > -1)
{
...
}
Why name that variable maxCsvPosition when a careful analysis of the dozens of lines of surrounding code will tell you that? What are you, lazy? And even dozens of lines is often a luxury—many of the methods in this thing are many hundreds of lines long! The variable names are typically like the following, their scope often spanning many screens' worth of code:
ed1
s
sd
p
pd
Shouting curse words with great frequency has become my new affect here at t'office.
I despair 
|
|
|
|
|
Variable naming rule 0) You don't have to name the variables you don't create.
|
|
|
|
|
My deciphering of four of those variable names is:
s sd p pd
|
|
|
|
|
Your guess is at least as good as mine until I can dig in more deeply. p is not a pointer (at least not in C# parlance) but turns out to hold an instance of something called a FieldDef 
This code was clearly written by vandals
|
|
|
|
|
This inspired me a little haiku! 
if (nameOfUser)
name ++;
for (var word = 0; word < name; lowercase(ref word)) {
Comments(ref products);
}
|
|
|
|
|
Well, with number two ... why not flush down the sh1t?
|
|
|
|
|
WTF? Whoever wrote that code needs to have a frontal lobotomy... As they are obviously antisocial psychopaths!
What do you get when you cross a joke with a rhetorical question?
The metaphorical solid rear-end expulsions have impacted the metaphorical motorized bladed rotating air movement mechanism.
Do questions with multiple question marks annoy you???
|
|
|
|
|
Given that they wrote the code to begin with, I think the lobotomy is already accomplished.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
What if he already had one?
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
