Code Optimize
-
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!?
-
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:
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.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
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
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:
Thank you. This was exactly the point I was trying to make.
-
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.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
thank you for feedback, i'll try to follow your advice in my future comments :sigh: (it's a lot easier for me to structure code than normal text)
-
thank you for feedback, i'll try to follow your advice in my future comments :sigh: (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.
-
That
if(something)
return true;
else return false;... is far too prevalent. Its cousin,
if(something)
return a;
else return b;... is at least understandable as some people have an allergic reaction to even simple ternaries (I have no idea why, they are a perfectly valid part of the language and have been since C). Interesting to see someone else who likes to do
if(0 != ...)
... as well.
Personally, I'm not a fan of ...
if (0 != ...)
I understand the arguments, that its less likely to cause an error if you use = rather than ==, but seriously, that doesn't occur that often (at least with reasonably competent developers), and I prefer readability to obscurity. I've never seen a mathematical formula with the constant term on the l.h.s.
-
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"
-
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.
BobJanova wrote:
Someone here is really passive-aggressive anti-ternary, judging by the downvote my other post got :~
Some people hate concision. Many of them, IMO, will need to look that word up :P Truly, I've seen some real abuse of ternaries, which becomes a real horror if you have to add "elseif" cases. This is why some organizations ban them completely.
-
BobJanova wrote:
Interesting to see someone else who likes to do
if(0 != ...)
... as well.
This is called Yoda condition.
VUnreal wrote:
BobJanova wrote:
Interesting to see someone else who likes to do
if(0 != ...)
... as well.
This is called Yoda condition.
LMAO, I first saw this suggestion somewhere around 1991, and Yoda had nothing to do with it (it might have been Michael Abrash or Kent Porter, or some one-shot contributor to Dr. Dobbs, which had just stopped doing Software Orthodontia and Calisthenics a couple of years before).
-
Personally, I'm not a fan of ...
if (0 != ...)
I understand the arguments, that its less likely to cause an error if you use = rather than ==, but seriously, that doesn't occur that often (at least with reasonably competent developers), and I prefer readability to obscurity. I've never seen a mathematical formula with the constant term on the l.h.s.
Rob Grainger wrote:
I understand the arguments, that its less likely to cause an error if you use = rather than ==, but seriously, that doesn't occur that often (at least with reasonably competent developers), and I prefer readability to obscurity.
Uh, huh....try bouncing back and forth several times a day between Pascal and C (then) or C# and VB.NET (now) and see how "competent" you stay, good buddy (BTW, that code-reading problem you have can be solved with practice...and this isn't mathematics). At the time this technique was suggested, it was one of the most common errors in C/C++ programming, and it's still a common error in all C's descendants when the coder spent signficant school or work time working in just about any other classical imperative language framework as most of them used a single equal sign as the operator for logical equivalence. Ah, the light just went on! You haven't spent much if any time outside the C box. You should get out more.