Code Optimize
-
There is a valid reason for using the
ResultFlagform. It's called debugging. How do you find out what went wrong when theExecuteNonQueryreturns nonzero? Don't you think the value returned might give you a clue? PeterSoftware rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994.
Agree. There is another VERY important reason why you should NOT change working production code unless you really must; Don't change tried and tested code! Ok. this code sample you show us is a bit clumsy but it works, right? So why change it? IMHO a good programmer must learnt NOT to change production code unless it's really really needed.
-
Agree. There is another VERY important reason why you should NOT change working production code unless you really must; Don't change tried and tested code! Ok. this code sample you show us is a bit clumsy but it works, right? So why change it? IMHO a good programmer must learnt NOT to change production code unless it's really really needed.
I definitely disagree with you there. Cleaning up code results in a (marginally, for any particular instance, but it builds up) nicer codebase to work in and that results in better productivity for everyone on the team. If it's 'tried and tested' then you can check that the tests still pass and therefore be sure you haven't broken anything with your cleanup.
-
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.
my Tip/Tricks[^] | "Rajesh-Puli" now "Rajesh-Anuhya"
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.
-
I definitely disagree with you there. Cleaning up code results in a (marginally, for any particular instance, but it builds up) nicer codebase to work in and that results in better productivity for everyone on the team. If it's 'tried and tested' then you can check that the tests still pass and therefore be sure you haven't broken anything with your cleanup.
I agree - Cleaning up the codebase is very tempting, it's much nicer to work on "clean" code. But my point is this: Cleaning up production code just for the sake of making it look "nice" is very dangerous because (depending on code size of course) you WILL create new bugs in doing so.
-
I agree - Cleaning up the codebase is very tempting, it's much nicer to work on "clean" code. But my point is this: Cleaning up production code just for the sake of making it look "nice" is very dangerous because (depending on code size of course) you WILL create new bugs in doing so.
-
I agree - Cleaning up the codebase is very tempting, it's much nicer to work on "clean" code. But my point is this: Cleaning up production code just for the sake of making it look "nice" is very dangerous because (depending on code size of course) you WILL create new bugs in doing so.
Snorri wrote:
But my point is this: Cleaning up production code just for the sake of making it look "nice" is very dangerous because you SOMETIMES will create new bugs in doing so.
FTFY. :-) And sometimes cleaning up code will fix latent bugs that no one has run into yet, or possibly they've hit them and just haven't reported them, or possibly they've hit them and thought that was normal behavior. Creating new bugs will be mitigated with unit tests; which of course one always has before refactoring.
-
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.
my Tip/Tricks[^] | "Rajesh-Puli" now "Rajesh-Anuhya"
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;
-
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.
my Tip/Tricks[^] | "Rajesh-Puli" now "Rajesh-Anuhya"
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 secondsI 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.
-
Florin Jurcovici wrote:
Although I don't buy either (no ternaries and braces around single statements) - you write the code as is fit initially, and reformat/refactor as needed when you change it.
Yes, exactly. And a simple
return statement ? a : b
... is not too hard to read, for sure. Someone here is really passive-aggressive anti-ternary, judging by the downvote my other post got :~ Heh, that pattern is even worse.
Probably gets paid by lines of code.
-
Today I found this code, from DAL class
public Boolean Execute_NoN_Query(string Sqlstring)
{
int ResultFlag = 0;
ResultFlag = MSSqlHelper.SqlHelper.ExecuteNonQuery(SqlServerConnection.Cn, CommandType.Text, Sqlstring);if (ResultFlag != 0) return true; else return false; }My Code is ....
public Boolean Execute_NoN_Query(string Sqlstring)
{
return (0 != MSSqlHelper.SqlHelper.ExecuteNonQuery(SqlServerConnection.Cn, CommandType.Text, Sqlstring));
}my Tip/Tricks[^] | "Rajesh-Puli" now "Rajesh-Anuhya"
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. :laugh:
-
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;
-
Snorri wrote:
But my point is this: Cleaning up production code just for the sake of making it look "nice" is very dangerous because you SOMETIMES will create new bugs in doing so.
FTFY. :-) And sometimes cleaning up code will fix latent bugs that no one has run into yet, or possibly they've hit them and just haven't reported them, or possibly they've hit them and thought that was normal behavior. Creating new bugs will be mitigated with unit tests; which of course one always has before refactoring.
Don't show a quote from me that you have changed!!!!!
-
Don't show a quote from me that you have changed!!!!!
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
-
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
-
Agree. There is another VERY important reason why you should NOT change working production code unless you really must; Don't change tried and tested code! Ok. this code sample you show us is a bit clumsy but it works, right? So why change it? IMHO a good programmer must learnt NOT to change production code unless it's really really needed.
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:
-
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.
my Tip/Tricks[^] | "Rajesh-Puli" now "Rajesh-Anuhya"
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...
-
Today I found this code, from DAL class
public Boolean Execute_NoN_Query(string Sqlstring)
{
int ResultFlag = 0;
ResultFlag = MSSqlHelper.SqlHelper.ExecuteNonQuery(SqlServerConnection.Cn, CommandType.Text, Sqlstring);if (ResultFlag != 0) return true; else return false; }My Code is ....
public Boolean Execute_NoN_Query(string Sqlstring)
{
return (0 != MSSqlHelper.SqlHelper.ExecuteNonQuery(SqlServerConnection.Cn, CommandType.Text, Sqlstring));
}my Tip/Tricks[^] | "Rajesh-Puli" now "Rajesh-Anuhya"
-
If examining the result while debugging is your main concern, you can still write
int ResultFlag = MSSqlHelper.SqlHelper.ExecuteNonQuery(SqlServerConnection.Cn, CommandType.Text, Sqlstring);
return ResultFlag != 0;
I've seen worse though...
const bool valTrue = true;
const bool valFalse = false;bool doTheWork()
{
...more impressive code...if ( result == valTrue ) return true;
else return false;
}That coder was preparing himself for the time that valTrue became false or something!?
-
If examining the result while debugging is your main concern, you can still write
int ResultFlag = MSSqlHelper.SqlHelper.ExecuteNonQuery(SqlServerConnection.Cn, CommandType.Text, Sqlstring);
return ResultFlag != 0;
I've seen worse though...
const bool valTrue = true;
const bool valFalse = false;bool doTheWork()
{
...more impressive code...if ( result == valTrue ) return true;
else return false;
}That coder was preparing himself for the time that valTrue became false or something!?
Wow, that is bad. They don't even use an abstract factory pattern to generate valTrue and valFalse. What happens if you want to change how valTrue and valFalse change later on, but without changing the DLL!?