|
I dont think theres anything wrong with that, the compiler is going to optimize it anyways, the reason I like it is because is simpler to read than the alternative and simpler is always better in code. The only argument you could make that one shouldnt do that is if you mistype and put if(someBoolValue=true) and do an assignment instead of a comparision. The workaround to that is to either put constants on the left hand side if(true==someBoolValue), which you should already be doing so the compiler catches other similar mistakes (like null checks), or set the compiler warning level to 4, which I would also recommend you do to let the compiler detect other bugs.
|
|
|
|
|
Why, when you can write it like this:
column.DataType = System.Type.GetType("System.String");
(obviously, it's C#)
[ My Blog] "Visual studio desperately needs some performance improvements. It is sometimes almost as slow as eclipse." - Rüdiger Klaehn "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
|
|
|
|
|
Because it's faster... much faster.
I always hope the typeof() gets done at compile time, but I think that's not the case.
However, I just whipped up a little program to do one million of each, and the GetType took 00:00:17.1290068, whereas the typeof took a mere 00:00:00.0245439.
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: ecause it's faster... much faster.
PIEBALDconsult wrote: GetType took 00:00:17.1290068
PIEBALDconsult wrote: typeof took a mere 00:00:00.0245439.
Either you missed my sarcasm, or I missed something else. So not only typeof shows intention much better (and is shorter), it's also faster. Excellent.
[ My Blog] "Visual studio desperately needs some performance improvements. It is sometimes almost as slow as eclipse." - Rüdiger Klaehn "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
|
|
|
|
|
|
PIEBALDconsult wrote: It's a win/win/win
And those are very nice situations to be in 
"Any sort of work in VB6 is bound to provide several WTF moments." - Christian Graus
|
|
|
|
|
dnh wrote: typeof shows intention much better (and is shorter), it's also faster. Excellent.
Hey, what if I want potential runtime errors? You just need to write a unit test to make sure column.DataType == typeof(string).
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book,
only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
|
|
|
|
|
I believe the typeof(T) operator is resolved at compile-time. Thus when you speak of how long "typeof took" you are really only measuring the time spent to loop, increment and check loop variable, and perform the assignment.
The MSDN documentation does make a distinction between types in general and the type objects that represent types (and which are, of course, themselves types). For example, the reference for the typeof() operator mentions:
Used to obtain the System.Type object for a type. A typeof expression takes the following form:
System.Type type = typeof(int);
It's clear that the System.Type is the "metatype", the type that is created for us but describes a type we created.
It also says to use GetType() to obtain the run-time type of an expression (although not the GetType overload discussed here, taking a string and finding a corresponding type in any loaded assembly in the appdomain!), and I take this as evidence in support of the "typeof() is resolved at compile-time" hypothesis. 
|
|
|
|
|
I dont get the question, call me stupid if you will!
|
|
|
|
|
column.DataType = System.Type.GetType("System.String");
column.DataType = typeof(string);
Second line is more readable (IMO), less typing, and faster. There is absolutely no sane reason to write it the first way, hence my (not really a) question.
[ My Blog] "Visual studio desperately needs some performance improvements. It is sometimes almost as slow as eclipse." - Rüdiger Klaehn "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
|
|
|
|
|
|
dnh wrote: less typing, and faster
And relatively less bytes to save on disk and less data to transfer across the wire during FTP and other copy operations. 
|
|
|
|
|
It is not really a question, it is a programming horror the OP ran across.
"Any sort of work in VB6 is bound to provide several WTF moments." - Christian Graus
|
|
|
|
|
System.String might not be defined in the current scope (reasons why, god knows)! Then typeof() wont work
|
|
|
|
|
GetType() takes more time because of its runtime evaluation right?
|
|
|
|
|
They are both in run time but there are JIT optimalizations... I've just found more on this topic in this[^] blog post.
[ My Blog] "Visual studio desperately needs some performance improvements. It is sometimes almost as slow as eclipse." - Rüdiger Klaehn "Real men use mspaint for writing code and notepad for designing graphics." - Anna-Jayne Metcalfe
|
|
|
|
|
Hello guys.
I have links to asp pages on the HTML page and each time I clink on the link, it shows a save-open dialog box instead of opening the page.
Is there something I did wrong???
Please help!!
kagiso
|
|
|
|
|
I think you might just be in the wrong forum...
Try the web development forum instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
Have you started your web server? (For Example, IIS).
Try first to start your web server and then again check. It should work.
Because, for simple html pages you require only browser, but for asp pages you require a web server.
JKOZA
|
|
|
|
|
Please do not entertain people who feel lazy in getting to the correct forum and posting there. It is becoming an increasing menace elevating the debris all over.
Unless we have the whips in place and make the processes more stringent, this would become more and more a mess.
|
|
|
|
|
There is almost certainly an infinity of things you did wrong. Among them: Posting to this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Now I don't pretend to know it all, so when I have questions I'm prepared to ask someone who might already have encountered a similar problem and listen to their suggestions. Unlike the muppets I work for.
Today's project saw me looking at the feasibility of porting an existing Access database to SQL Server. Easy, thought I, but then I actually saw the "database" in question.
To give you just one example of the horrors I'm looking at:
The "Machine" table has a "Date Added" column. Now, if you're like me, you'd expect this to be a DateTime column. So I was surprised to see this as a numeric field featuring values such as 1,2,3,4 etc. I was even more surprised to see that this field is related to a "DateAdded" table, whose sole purpose is to give index values to dates. It currently has a seperate entry for each and every day up to 31/12/2015. 
"It was the day before today.... I remember it like it was yesterday."
-Moleman
|
|
|
|
|
That's abnormalization right there. I assume this is some weird Y2.016K issue here.
|
|
|
|
|
martin_hughes wrote:
Yeah, totally. What was the reasoning behind it?
"The clue train passed his station without stopping." - John Simmons / outlaw programmer
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
