Welcome to the Lounge

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

using linq over a foreach gives no real gain

var source = GetAList();
var filtered = SomeClass.FilterAList(source, SomeFilter);
var sorted = SomeClass.MakeItSorted(filtered, SomeSortingCondition);
var grouped = SomeClass.MakeSomeGroups(sorted, SomeGroupingCondition);
var filteredAgain = SomeClass.FilterAList(grouped, AnotherFilter);
var result = SomeClass.ProjectAList(filteredAgain, SomeProjection);

// Or:
var result = SomeClass.ProjectAList(
    SomeClass.FilterAList(
        SomeClass.MakeSomeGroups(
            SomeClass.MakeItSorted(
                SomeClass.FilterAList(
                    GetAList(), 
                    SomeFilter), 
                SomeSortingCondition), 
            SomeGroupingCondition), 
        AnotherFilter), 
    SomeProjection);

var result = GetAList()
    .FilterAList(SomeFilter)
    .MakeItSorted(SomeSortingCondition)
    .MakeSomeGroups(SomeGroupingCondition)
    .FilterAList(AnotherFilter)
    .ProjectAList(SomeProjection);

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

You also forget "harder to debug"

Richard Deeming wrote:

If you stick to debugging your own code, it's easier to debug, because there's less of it

var result = GetAList()
    .FilterAList(SomeFilter)
    .MakeItSorted(SomeSortingCondition)
    .MakeSomeGroups(SomeGroupingCondition)
    .FilterAList(AnotherFilter)
    .ProjectAList(SomeProjection);

F-ES Sitecore wrote:

That line throws a null exception...can you look at the line that threw the exception and know what the issue is?

string mytext = mydata.Where(a => a.Name != "Admin" && a.ID < 1000).OrderBy(b => b.Surname).SelectMany(c => c.Role).FisrOrDefault(d => d.Updated.Year == DateTime.Now.Year);

string mytext = mydata
    .Where(a => a.Name != "Admin" && a.ID < 1000)
    .OrderBy(b => b.Surname)
    .SelectMany(c => c.Role)
    .FirstOrDefault(d => d.Updated.Year == DateTime.Now.Year);

Richard Deeming wrote:

Writing all of your code in one big Main function is faster than any of this "object-oriented" nonsense.

Richard Deeming wrote:

And using C or assembly will be much faster than this JIT-compiled C# nonsense.

for(int i =0; i< 100; ++i)
 {...}

int i;
for(i =0; i< 100; ++i)
 {...}

Mike Marynowski wrote:

I would be a bit surprised if your first point was true. Please give me a couple examples of optimizations that depend on function size.

foreach(string x in y)
{
   x = x.Trim().ToLower();
   DoSomething (x);
}

function DoSomething(string s)
{
   if (s.StartsWith("hello"))
   {
       s = "test";
   }
}

foreach(string x in y)
{
   x = x.Trim().ToLower();
   if (x.StartsWith("hello"))
   {
       x = "test";
   }
}

var vidsWithOutPics = vidList.Except(vidsWithPics).Where(v => !v.IsAlternateTitle);

var inDuration = DiskFile.GetAll().Where(df => !df.HasDuration).Select(df => df.Video).Distinct();

var noSizeList = videoFiles.Where(file => file.Bytes < 0 && files.Contains(file.Location));