|
Wonderfull! Even to the point of paraphrasing the old BASIC error message "?Redo from start" - and so that we really can see it, duplicate it several times.
Nice 
|
|
|
|
|
At least it's easy to see what its doing if nothing else!
|
|
|
|
|
Aaaah!, it makes me remember some of my early programs...
|
|
|
|
|
OMG .. reminds me of some old code base I had to maintain some 4 yrs back ... Once we tried counting the cyclometric complexity of the code and got a headOverfolowException
On a more serious note there are many situations when coders care little about how others see it ... They just fall into a loop of get-it-done-yesterday (by one of the zillion managers who think they are God) and the result is just infront of us 
|
|
|
|
|
A right/wrong flag will make the code simpler. But I think you should place all the values in 2 arrays and use memcmp (or similar functions)
|
|
|
|
|
There're lots of ways to optimise this code (without a right/wrong flags, there are more elegant solutions) but I don't think it's thread author's intention to get a code review...
How can we code so ugly when we're fresh eh? 
It's so funny to review our old codes.
These days I found a code of mine written in C# and using a goto, WTF?  *palmface*
|
|
|
|
|
Link to the article
For More detail explanation(PDF)
Counting arrays from 0 simplifies the computation of the memory address of each element.
If an array is stored at a given position in memory (it’s called the address) the position of each element can be computed as
element(n) = address + n * size_of_the_element
element(n) = address + (n-1) * size_of_the_element
modified 22-Apr-13 13:45pm.
|
|
|
|
|
kburman6 wrote: Not a huge difference but it adds an unnecessary subtraction for each access.
And because unnecessary calcs are slowing down the computers' speed it was just logical to do it as simple as possible. Developer's course at my school, lesson 1 (or two, however; It was at the very beginning when they explained it to us).
|
|
|
|
|
Marco Bertschi wrote: lesson 1 0
FTFY!
|
|
|
|
|
But for lesser mortals like me, who did Mechanical engineering and still ended up here, this is news. Besides, the first book I ever read about computers was to learn C++ programming. At that time, I had no clue that the black screen where I type code is console. I had to literally ask someone to open that black screen for me so I can code. I was probably wrong with my approach but I am still better than lots of those urgentzz codezz plzzz types I guess.
"Bastards encourage idiots to use Oracle Forms, Web Forms, Access and a number of other dinky web publishing tolls.", Mycroft Holmes[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
d@nish wrote: I was probably wrong with my approach but I am still better than lots of those urgentzz codezz plzzz types I guess.
You learnt coding, diddn't you? From that point of view your approach wasn't that wrong  .
Furthermore I understand if this is news for auto-didacts. And I am not surprised if anyone says that this is news for him, had to recall it myself first too.
|
|
|
|
|
It is just pointless to add one more calculation step without any reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly. And everything which is pointless leads to time-consume which is to be avoided.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yes. Little tiny wasted instructions add up fast when you do them as often as array accesses. And remember, when this was decided, even HUGE computers ran at much, much, lower speeds - an IBM 360/195 could execute 16,000,000 instructions per second (at best), compared to the around 6,000,000,000 that your PC is (probably) capable of executing - it's difficult to be sure, due to multiple cores, pipelines, and caches, all of which were a lot smaller or nonexistent in those days. And remember, a 360/195 cost about £3,000,000 back in 1982, when beer was £0.30 per pint...so you didn't want to waste anything!
The universe is composed of electrons, neutrons, protons and......morons. (ThePhantomUpvoter)
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine you'd bought the beer instead - You wouldn't be able to count to zero let alone from zero
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: wasted instructions add up fast
Which is why I detest animated widgets. 
|
|
|
|
|
That may have made sense in the 1960's, but not really anymore. A simple addition and possibly a shift takes very time relative to all the other processing happening in a computer.
|
|
|
|
|
You don't know what else the computer is doing so don't assume that there are plenty of cycles. If every app wastes 10% of the "extra" cycles it doesn't take long to bog the whole thing down.
|
|
|
|
|
That is assuming that the developers of system code have not already optimized the code where it can be of the most benefit. Also, it assumes that the compiler is not smart enough to do some optimizations.
|
|
|
|
|
Not at all. I'm saying that I could have a gazillion apps running.
|
|
|
|
|
Relative to system calls, and library calls, the code in the application usually takes up little of the resources unless you have an application that is heavily processor bound.
|
|
|
|
|
And let's keep it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
I thought it was to save electrons.
“Education is not the piling on of learning, information, data, facts, skills, or abilities - that's training or instruction - but is rather making visible what is hidden as a seed”
“One of the greatest problems of our time is that many are schooled but few are educated”
Sir Thomas More (1478 – 1535)
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
