|
|
Don't get upset. FTFY is a common short hand here, it means "Fixed That For You".
Whenever a quote is followed by FTFY, the quoter has intentionally changed the text. There are a myriad of reasons for this. Often it is done for humorous effect or, as in this case, to show that the quoter almost agrees with the OP except for a minor difference.
[edit]
As a member for eight years, I'd assume you would know this.
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
Nagy Vilmos wrote: As a member for eight years, I'd presume you would know this.
FTFY 
And from the clouds a mighty voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it could come worse!"
And I smiled and was happy
And it came worse.
|
|
|
|
|
CDP1802 wrote: Nagy Vilmos wrote: As a member for eight years, I'd presume you would know this be sober by now.
FTFY
ftftfyfy
Panic, Chaos, Destruction. My work here is done.
Drink. Get drunk. Fall over - P O'H
OK, I will win to day or my name isn't Ethel Crudacre! - DD Ethel Crudacre
I cannot live by bread alone. Bacon and ketchup are needed as well. - Trollslayer
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb - they're often *students*, for heaven's sake - Terry Pratchett
|
|
|
|
|
LMAO...I've been here a member for only seven years, so now I know a secret from you eight-year-olds....I'm growing up! Serioiusly, I've never been able to figure the meaning of FTFY in context, and it didn't seem to be adding that much meaning in any case except as a pejorative, so I never bothered asking anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, sorry. Mea maxima culpa.
(and LOL)
|
|
|
|
|
I think I have to support your statements downvoted by others - you seem to stand allone with your opinion - Not any longer! @All the theorists with the "well tested code"... I learned the lesson not to change production code "on the fly". Because sometime a piece of code looks stupid or ugly - but it's just an undocumented workarround for a bug in an underlaying system or whatever. It's not always good to assume all other programmers are idiots... So if I change (or better "refactor") production code - this is my intention - it's like adding a new feature, and yes if there are unit tests in place, it helps. But @all the "perfect code" guys: If it is a "well tested code"-project, unit tests exists - how likley is it to find a real coding horror, isn't it more likely to find it in the "not so well tested" code bases (unit tests??? - whats a "unit"?). I view myself as a "perfectionist" while coding, code style nazi, refactoring fan,... - but there is a real world out there where "perfection" most times mean: "Not complete crap" - I worked on tons of codes in my life, ranging in style and effort from "bloody beginner" to "code god" but "academic perfection" I have rarely seen in a non trivial product. Don't get me wrong - I'm always a fan of "better/shorter code" - but some commenters may have to go through some real projects (why not let's say > 1million lines of code), and learn to leave the existing code - if nobody complains about it - alone! ![Rose | [Rose]](https://codeproject.freetls.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
johannesnestler wrote: I view myself as a "perfectionist" while coding, code style nazi, refactoring
fan
You should apply 5 seconds of that into your authoring skills.
You really need to work on your paragraphs if you want people to actually read your posts.
|
|
|
|
|
thank you for feedback, i'll try to follow your advice in my future comments  (it's a lot easier for me to structure code than normal text)
|
|
|
|
|
You're not alone on that one. I think that many developers have that issue.
I wasn't, now I am, then I won't be anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Some of us have attention spans longer than a Twitter message 
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you. This was exactly the point I was trying to make.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good, every one saying about the readability and Debugging,
However this is a Small code, which is called by many classes.
my point is why should i declare a extra variable "resultflag", where this method called 5000+ times in every 10 seconds.
modified 17-Jan-12 7:53am.
|
|
|
|
|
I shouldn't worry about it, if you're accessing a data layer any saving from avoiding allocating 32-bits on the stack is negligible.
Premature optimisation is the root of all evil.
The only actual "improvement" you've made is that the code occupies less space on screen. All the "improvements" you claim will be performed by a decent optimising compiler on release code anyway.
Design for readability/maintainability, then optimise as you have evidence it is worthwhile.
|
|
|
|
|
Declaring an extra variable doesn't affect your performance at all.
Compilers can (and will) easily do the code reduction you did (note what you did is not an optimization).
On the other, having that extra variable does aid in readability and debugging.
The only rewrite I would is (if I absolutely have to change something for no reason other than style):
return ResultFlag != 0;
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, I would move the int declaration down one command, shorten the variable name and use your return with (). I haven't tried it, but I'd be surprised C# would compile your return without ().
|
|
|
|
|
Rajesh Anuhya wrote: However this is a Small code, which is called by many classes.
my
point is why should i declare a extra variable "resultflag", where this method
called 5000+ times in every 10 seconds
I can only suppose that that is a general statement that has nothing to do with the code presented.
First the code presented suggests it is doing a database call. You will not be able to even measure the performance gain that you are claiming because of that. The impact of the database call will completely overwhelm the the measurement of what you are claiming. I would suspect that even the variability of network traffic itself would reduce your measurement to the noise level.
Second if your goal is to improve the performance of the that code then you must reduce the number of calls to the database. For example by using a memory cache. That would have a significant impact.
Finally the code is using a return value that is going to end up on the stack regardless of whether it is explicitly stated or implicitly stated. I wouldn't be suprised if the emitted code is almost basically the same between the two versions.
|
|
|
|
|
omg - bad luck with this example for your statement - have a look at the resulting IL - the variable declaration will be optimized away in the release build... If you would realy gain performance...
|
|
|
|
|
One line is more readable than four when three of the four are wasted space. That's because you get three more lines of other code on your screen which help to show the class context (unless the whole class fits on one screen, but that's unusual). There's only one operation in that method which is complex enough to require reading, and putting pointless extra lines makes it less readable.
And I really hope you were intentionally making a point about spurious material with all those emoticons and extraneous formatting, because it makes your post much harder to read.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: And I really hope you were intentionally making a point about spurious material with all those emoticons and extraneous formatting, because it makes your post much harder to read.
punch  +5
|
|
|
|
|
I actually came up with your result before I read further and saw your result. Then I thought, No, you(me) are wrong. Sure as shooting, as soon as I code it that way, when the return is 5 call this routine, when less than 0 call another routine otherwise call a third routine, then return true when the result isn't 0. If I make these 5 statements into 2, they'll never ask to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
I would have fixed the argument name "Sqlstring" while I was at it.
"You get that on the big jobs."
|
|
|
|
|
The first was written by someone who has had to debug code.
The second was written by someone who believes that code always works as intended and never needs to be debugged.
|
|
|
|
|
Trying to translate a winforms app into silverlight, which doesn't have blocking socket operations:
private void ReceiveTelnetDataRepeatedly()
{
while (connection != null && connection.isconnected)
{
connection.CheckForNewBytes();
ProcessData(connection.GetIncomingStrings());
}
}
This was executing in a thread, and the "check for new bytes" was allocating an 8K array every time... within 30 seconds, I'd allocated 1.5GB of RAM and caused an OutOfMemoryException... 
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
I disagree with the point the OP is trying to make. The original code is easier to read
and 
.
and commas, it takes longer to read and understand when you're not familiar with the code, and it's harder to spot a factual error. 
,
but in a professional environment,
and your compiler is not awesome, 
like in some embedded systems, or some video games. 