▲ 911 ▼ I wish (i.imgur.com) submitted 2 years ago by nave@lemmy.zip to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 187 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 24 points 2 years ago (1 child) Good job my young padawan, let me teach you about the modulo operator ... permalink fedilink source hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) Actually the modulo operator is the wrong solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 27 points 2 years ago* (2 children) No its not the wrong solution! Premature optimization is a waste of time. Using if or case are not a solution because they are way too verbose and very easy to introduce an error. Modulo is a solution, and using bit-wise and is another faster solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] droans@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago It's only the wrong solution if you're writing something where every operation needs to be accounted for. Modulo is a great, easy, readable method otherwise. Not too certain on C++, but I think this would be the cleanest implementation that still somewhat optimizes itself: private bool IsEven(int number){ return !(number % 2) } permalink fedilink source parent [+] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) You call it premature optimization. I call it obvious. You use a flat head as a Phillip's. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maalus@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can call it whatever you like, the fact of the matter remains - code readibility is more important than most optimizations you can ever hope to make. Bad programmers optimize everything and produce code that is not understandabe and 0.001% "faster" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spudwart@spudwart.com 2 points 2 years ago Optimization isn't inherently better than Readable code. What's most important is what matters to your project. If your project manages itself with limited resources, Optimization is better than Readable code, and it should be supplemented with comments. If your project has a wealth of resources, readable code is probably the better option. The "This is the ONLY WAY" mindset in coding is the only thing that I would argue is completely wrong. The "One-size fits all" mindset in development is short sighted, sure. but what makes it the worst, is when it becomes "One-Size fits all ONLY". "One-size fits all" means the project runs well on everything. "Optimized for one" means the project runs exceptionally on one Architecture/OS. Basically, this situation is the highly unsatisfying "It's your preference". But given the context of Yandere Dev and the Target Audience of Yandere Simulator, his code is perfect. It's code that runs terribly on everything and the project is for no one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] droans@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago Okay wow no need to get personal. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I call it making assumptions that may be incorrect, and do you know if the compiler will do the optimization anyway in this case? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago* (3 children) What statement do you flag as assumption? Yes, I do. The modulo operator is only a subset of bit masks. It is more explicit to write: if ( (variable &EVEN_MASK) == 0) ... To act upon even numbers then: if ( (variable %2) == 0) ... How would you name the 2 in the above statement for more expressive power? EVEN_MODULO_OP ? That may throw more people off imo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago You shouldn't rename 2 at all. "Even" has a commonly understood meaning that is instantly recognizable from (variable %2) == 0. The bitmask is an overgeneralization. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrbaby@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Psh screw those people, they need to see my massive coder wang if(!i&1){ ... } permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I give up, I was wrong to even think about the modulo operator, you are clearly the master programmer. 🥇 This reminds me of a discussion about the ternary operator ? :, some people think its the one true way of writing code because its just so clear what it does. And I say please use it sparingly because if you start doing nested ternary operators its very hard to unpack what your code does, and I prefer readability over compact code, especially with today's compilers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I feel you said about JavaScript as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheManuz@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wrong means that it doesn't produce the right output. How is the modulo operator the wrong solution? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 years ago You are right. I have been biased. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pulsar@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://realpython.com/python-modulo-operator/#how-to-check-if-a-number-is-even-or-odd I just wonder why module is the wrong solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children) Not neccessarily wrong, but you could also check the first bit. If it's 1 the number is uneven, if it's 0 the number is even. That seems to be more efficient. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That’s what I was thinking too… Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if most languages convert modulo 2 to this automatically. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That could also be the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago That’s the main issue with premature optimization: do it the “optimized” way and it may still be inefficient, or do it the obvious way and let the compiler turn it into its most optimized form. (Of course, not the case with all languages, but most mainstream compilers optimize the code to a decent extent.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Modern compilers and interpreters are smart enough to figure out what you're trying to do and automatically do that for you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ziviz@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago Huh... That makes sense. Til. Ran some tests but speed is pretty similar. Only 4% faster using bitmath or 300 milliseconds difference after 10mil runs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago (3 children) Actually the modulo operator is the wrong solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 27 points 2 years ago* (2 children) No its not the wrong solution! Premature optimization is a waste of time. Using if or case are not a solution because they are way too verbose and very easy to introduce an error. Modulo is a solution, and using bit-wise and is another faster solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] droans@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago It's only the wrong solution if you're writing something where every operation needs to be accounted for. Modulo is a great, easy, readable method otherwise. Not too certain on C++, but I think this would be the cleanest implementation that still somewhat optimizes itself: private bool IsEven(int number){ return !(number % 2) } permalink fedilink source parent [+] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) You call it premature optimization. I call it obvious. You use a flat head as a Phillip's. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maalus@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can call it whatever you like, the fact of the matter remains - code readibility is more important than most optimizations you can ever hope to make. Bad programmers optimize everything and produce code that is not understandabe and 0.001% "faster" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spudwart@spudwart.com 2 points 2 years ago Optimization isn't inherently better than Readable code. What's most important is what matters to your project. If your project manages itself with limited resources, Optimization is better than Readable code, and it should be supplemented with comments. If your project has a wealth of resources, readable code is probably the better option. The "This is the ONLY WAY" mindset in coding is the only thing that I would argue is completely wrong. The "One-size fits all" mindset in development is short sighted, sure. but what makes it the worst, is when it becomes "One-Size fits all ONLY". "One-size fits all" means the project runs well on everything. "Optimized for one" means the project runs exceptionally on one Architecture/OS. Basically, this situation is the highly unsatisfying "It's your preference". But given the context of Yandere Dev and the Target Audience of Yandere Simulator, his code is perfect. It's code that runs terribly on everything and the project is for no one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] droans@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago Okay wow no need to get personal. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I call it making assumptions that may be incorrect, and do you know if the compiler will do the optimization anyway in this case? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago* (3 children) What statement do you flag as assumption? Yes, I do. The modulo operator is only a subset of bit masks. It is more explicit to write: if ( (variable &EVEN_MASK) == 0) ... To act upon even numbers then: if ( (variable %2) == 0) ... How would you name the 2 in the above statement for more expressive power? EVEN_MODULO_OP ? That may throw more people off imo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago You shouldn't rename 2 at all. "Even" has a commonly understood meaning that is instantly recognizable from (variable %2) == 0. The bitmask is an overgeneralization. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrbaby@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Psh screw those people, they need to see my massive coder wang if(!i&1){ ... } permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I give up, I was wrong to even think about the modulo operator, you are clearly the master programmer. 🥇 This reminds me of a discussion about the ternary operator ? :, some people think its the one true way of writing code because its just so clear what it does. And I say please use it sparingly because if you start doing nested ternary operators its very hard to unpack what your code does, and I prefer readability over compact code, especially with today's compilers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I feel you said about JavaScript as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent [–] TheManuz@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wrong means that it doesn't produce the right output. How is the modulo operator the wrong solution? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 years ago You are right. I have been biased. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Pulsar@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://realpython.com/python-modulo-operator/#how-to-check-if-a-number-is-even-or-odd I just wonder why module is the wrong solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children) Not neccessarily wrong, but you could also check the first bit. If it's 1 the number is uneven, if it's 0 the number is even. That seems to be more efficient. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That’s what I was thinking too… Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if most languages convert modulo 2 to this automatically. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That could also be the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago That’s the main issue with premature optimization: do it the “optimized” way and it may still be inefficient, or do it the obvious way and let the compiler turn it into its most optimized form. (Of course, not the case with all languages, but most mainstream compilers optimize the code to a decent extent.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Modern compilers and interpreters are smart enough to figure out what you're trying to do and automatically do that for you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ziviz@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago Huh... That makes sense. Til. Ran some tests but speed is pretty similar. Only 4% faster using bitmath or 300 milliseconds difference after 10mil runs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 27 points 2 years ago* (2 children) No its not the wrong solution! Premature optimization is a waste of time. Using if or case are not a solution because they are way too verbose and very easy to introduce an error. Modulo is a solution, and using bit-wise and is another faster solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] droans@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago It's only the wrong solution if you're writing something where every operation needs to be accounted for. Modulo is a great, easy, readable method otherwise. Not too certain on C++, but I think this would be the cleanest implementation that still somewhat optimizes itself: private bool IsEven(int number){ return !(number % 2) } permalink fedilink source parent [+] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) You call it premature optimization. I call it obvious. You use a flat head as a Phillip's. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maalus@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can call it whatever you like, the fact of the matter remains - code readibility is more important than most optimizations you can ever hope to make. Bad programmers optimize everything and produce code that is not understandabe and 0.001% "faster" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spudwart@spudwart.com 2 points 2 years ago Optimization isn't inherently better than Readable code. What's most important is what matters to your project. If your project manages itself with limited resources, Optimization is better than Readable code, and it should be supplemented with comments. If your project has a wealth of resources, readable code is probably the better option. The "This is the ONLY WAY" mindset in coding is the only thing that I would argue is completely wrong. The "One-size fits all" mindset in development is short sighted, sure. but what makes it the worst, is when it becomes "One-Size fits all ONLY". "One-size fits all" means the project runs well on everything. "Optimized for one" means the project runs exceptionally on one Architecture/OS. Basically, this situation is the highly unsatisfying "It's your preference". But given the context of Yandere Dev and the Target Audience of Yandere Simulator, his code is perfect. It's code that runs terribly on everything and the project is for no one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] droans@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago Okay wow no need to get personal. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I call it making assumptions that may be incorrect, and do you know if the compiler will do the optimization anyway in this case? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago* (3 children) What statement do you flag as assumption? Yes, I do. The modulo operator is only a subset of bit masks. It is more explicit to write: if ( (variable &EVEN_MASK) == 0) ... To act upon even numbers then: if ( (variable %2) == 0) ... How would you name the 2 in the above statement for more expressive power? EVEN_MODULO_OP ? That may throw more people off imo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago You shouldn't rename 2 at all. "Even" has a commonly understood meaning that is instantly recognizable from (variable %2) == 0. The bitmask is an overgeneralization. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrbaby@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Psh screw those people, they need to see my massive coder wang if(!i&1){ ... } permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I give up, I was wrong to even think about the modulo operator, you are clearly the master programmer. 🥇 This reminds me of a discussion about the ternary operator ? :, some people think its the one true way of writing code because its just so clear what it does. And I say please use it sparingly because if you start doing nested ternary operators its very hard to unpack what your code does, and I prefer readability over compact code, especially with today's compilers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I feel you said about JavaScript as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] droans@lemmy.world 5 points 2 years ago It's only the wrong solution if you're writing something where every operation needs to be accounted for. Modulo is a great, easy, readable method otherwise. Not too certain on C++, but I think this would be the cleanest implementation that still somewhat optimizes itself: private bool IsEven(int number){ return !(number % 2) } permalink fedilink source parent
[+] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org -10 points 2 years ago (2 children) You call it premature optimization. I call it obvious. You use a flat head as a Phillip's. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Maalus@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can call it whatever you like, the fact of the matter remains - code readibility is more important than most optimizations you can ever hope to make. Bad programmers optimize everything and produce code that is not understandabe and 0.001% "faster" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spudwart@spudwart.com 2 points 2 years ago Optimization isn't inherently better than Readable code. What's most important is what matters to your project. If your project manages itself with limited resources, Optimization is better than Readable code, and it should be supplemented with comments. If your project has a wealth of resources, readable code is probably the better option. The "This is the ONLY WAY" mindset in coding is the only thing that I would argue is completely wrong. The "One-size fits all" mindset in development is short sighted, sure. but what makes it the worst, is when it becomes "One-Size fits all ONLY". "One-size fits all" means the project runs well on everything. "Optimized for one" means the project runs exceptionally on one Architecture/OS. Basically, this situation is the highly unsatisfying "It's your preference". But given the context of Yandere Dev and the Target Audience of Yandere Simulator, his code is perfect. It's code that runs terribly on everything and the project is for no one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] droans@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago Okay wow no need to get personal. permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I call it making assumptions that may be incorrect, and do you know if the compiler will do the optimization anyway in this case? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago* (3 children) What statement do you flag as assumption? Yes, I do. The modulo operator is only a subset of bit masks. It is more explicit to write: if ( (variable &EVEN_MASK) == 0) ... To act upon even numbers then: if ( (variable %2) == 0) ... How would you name the 2 in the above statement for more expressive power? EVEN_MODULO_OP ? That may throw more people off imo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago You shouldn't rename 2 at all. "Even" has a commonly understood meaning that is instantly recognizable from (variable %2) == 0. The bitmask is an overgeneralization. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrbaby@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Psh screw those people, they need to see my massive coder wang if(!i&1){ ... } permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I give up, I was wrong to even think about the modulo operator, you are clearly the master programmer. 🥇 This reminds me of a discussion about the ternary operator ? :, some people think its the one true way of writing code because its just so clear what it does. And I say please use it sparingly because if you start doing nested ternary operators its very hard to unpack what your code does, and I prefer readability over compact code, especially with today's compilers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I feel you said about JavaScript as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Maalus@lemmy.world 17 points 2 years ago (2 children) You can call it whatever you like, the fact of the matter remains - code readibility is more important than most optimizations you can ever hope to make. Bad programmers optimize everything and produce code that is not understandabe and 0.001% "faster" permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] spudwart@spudwart.com 2 points 2 years ago Optimization isn't inherently better than Readable code. What's most important is what matters to your project. If your project manages itself with limited resources, Optimization is better than Readable code, and it should be supplemented with comments. If your project has a wealth of resources, readable code is probably the better option. The "This is the ONLY WAY" mindset in coding is the only thing that I would argue is completely wrong. The "One-size fits all" mindset in development is short sighted, sure. but what makes it the worst, is when it becomes "One-Size fits all ONLY". "One-size fits all" means the project runs well on everything. "Optimized for one" means the project runs exceptionally on one Architecture/OS. Basically, this situation is the highly unsatisfying "It's your preference". But given the context of Yandere Dev and the Target Audience of Yandere Simulator, his code is perfect. It's code that runs terribly on everything and the project is for no one. permalink fedilink source parent [–] droans@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago Okay wow no need to get personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] spudwart@spudwart.com 2 points 2 years ago Optimization isn't inherently better than Readable code. What's most important is what matters to your project. If your project manages itself with limited resources, Optimization is better than Readable code, and it should be supplemented with comments. If your project has a wealth of resources, readable code is probably the better option. The "This is the ONLY WAY" mindset in coding is the only thing that I would argue is completely wrong. The "One-size fits all" mindset in development is short sighted, sure. but what makes it the worst, is when it becomes "One-Size fits all ONLY". "One-size fits all" means the project runs well on everything. "Optimized for one" means the project runs exceptionally on one Architecture/OS. Basically, this situation is the highly unsatisfying "It's your preference". But given the context of Yandere Dev and the Target Audience of Yandere Simulator, his code is perfect. It's code that runs terribly on everything and the project is for no one. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] droans@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago Okay wow no need to get personal. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I call it making assumptions that may be incorrect, and do you know if the compiler will do the optimization anyway in this case? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago* (3 children) What statement do you flag as assumption? Yes, I do. The modulo operator is only a subset of bit masks. It is more explicit to write: if ( (variable &EVEN_MASK) == 0) ... To act upon even numbers then: if ( (variable %2) == 0) ... How would you name the 2 in the above statement for more expressive power? EVEN_MODULO_OP ? That may throw more people off imo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago You shouldn't rename 2 at all. "Even" has a commonly understood meaning that is instantly recognizable from (variable %2) == 0. The bitmask is an overgeneralization. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrbaby@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Psh screw those people, they need to see my massive coder wang if(!i&1){ ... } permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I give up, I was wrong to even think about the modulo operator, you are clearly the master programmer. 🥇 This reminds me of a discussion about the ternary operator ? :, some people think its the one true way of writing code because its just so clear what it does. And I say please use it sparingly because if you start doing nested ternary operators its very hard to unpack what your code does, and I prefer readability over compact code, especially with today's compilers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I feel you said about JavaScript as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 2 years ago* (3 children) What statement do you flag as assumption? Yes, I do. The modulo operator is only a subset of bit masks. It is more explicit to write: if ( (variable &EVEN_MASK) == 0) ... To act upon even numbers then: if ( (variable %2) == 0) ... How would you name the 2 in the above statement for more expressive power? EVEN_MODULO_OP ? That may throw more people off imo. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] kogasa@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago You shouldn't rename 2 at all. "Even" has a commonly understood meaning that is instantly recognizable from (variable %2) == 0. The bitmask is an overgeneralization. permalink fedilink source parent [–] mrbaby@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Psh screw those people, they need to see my massive coder wang if(!i&1){ ... } permalink fedilink source parent [–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I give up, I was wrong to even think about the modulo operator, you are clearly the master programmer. 🥇 This reminds me of a discussion about the ternary operator ? :, some people think its the one true way of writing code because its just so clear what it does. And I say please use it sparingly because if you start doing nested ternary operators its very hard to unpack what your code does, and I prefer readability over compact code, especially with today's compilers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I feel you said about JavaScript as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] kogasa@programming.dev 10 points 2 years ago You shouldn't rename 2 at all. "Even" has a commonly understood meaning that is instantly recognizable from (variable %2) == 0. The bitmask is an overgeneralization. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mrbaby@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago Psh screw those people, they need to see my massive coder wang if(!i&1){ ... } permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BeigeAgenda@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) I give up, I was wrong to even think about the modulo operator, you are clearly the master programmer. 🥇 This reminds me of a discussion about the ternary operator ? :, some people think its the one true way of writing code because its just so clear what it does. And I say please use it sparingly because if you start doing nested ternary operators its very hard to unpack what your code does, and I prefer readability over compact code, especially with today's compilers. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I feel you said about JavaScript as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] uranibaba@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago I feel you said about JavaScript as a whole. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] TheManuz@lemmy.world 25 points 2 years ago (1 child) Wrong means that it doesn't produce the right output. How is the modulo operator the wrong solution? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 years ago You are right. I have been biased. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mryessir@lemmy.sdf.org 9 points 2 years ago You are right. I have been biased. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Pulsar@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 child) https://realpython.com/python-modulo-operator/#how-to-check-if-a-number-is-even-or-odd I just wonder why module is the wrong solution. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children) Not neccessarily wrong, but you could also check the first bit. If it's 1 the number is uneven, if it's 0 the number is even. That seems to be more efficient. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That’s what I was thinking too… Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if most languages convert modulo 2 to this automatically. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That could also be the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago That’s the main issue with premature optimization: do it the “optimized” way and it may still be inefficient, or do it the obvious way and let the compiler turn it into its most optimized form. (Of course, not the case with all languages, but most mainstream compilers optimize the code to a decent extent.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Modern compilers and interpreters are smart enough to figure out what you're trying to do and automatically do that for you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ziviz@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago Huh... That makes sense. Til. Ran some tests but speed is pretty similar. Only 4% faster using bitmath or 300 milliseconds difference after 10mil runs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago (3 children) Not neccessarily wrong, but you could also check the first bit. If it's 1 the number is uneven, if it's 0 the number is even. That seems to be more efficient. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That’s what I was thinking too… Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if most languages convert modulo 2 to this automatically. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That could also be the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago That’s the main issue with premature optimization: do it the “optimized” way and it may still be inefficient, or do it the obvious way and let the compiler turn it into its most optimized form. (Of course, not the case with all languages, but most mainstream compilers optimize the code to a decent extent.) permalink fedilink source parent [–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Modern compilers and interpreters are smart enough to figure out what you're trying to do and automatically do that for you. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ziviz@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago Huh... That makes sense. Til. Ran some tests but speed is pretty similar. Only 4% faster using bitmath or 300 milliseconds difference after 10mil runs. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dukk@programming.dev 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) That’s what I was thinking too… Although, I wouldn’t be surprised if most languages convert modulo 2 to this automatically. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That could also be the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago That’s the main issue with premature optimization: do it the “optimized” way and it may still be inefficient, or do it the obvious way and let the compiler turn it into its most optimized form. (Of course, not the case with all languages, but most mainstream compilers optimize the code to a decent extent.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mellejwz@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) That could also be the case. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] dukk@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago That’s the main issue with premature optimization: do it the “optimized” way and it may still be inefficient, or do it the obvious way and let the compiler turn it into its most optimized form. (Of course, not the case with all languages, but most mainstream compilers optimize the code to a decent extent.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dukk@programming.dev 2 points 2 years ago That’s the main issue with premature optimization: do it the “optimized” way and it may still be inefficient, or do it the obvious way and let the compiler turn it into its most optimized form. (Of course, not the case with all languages, but most mainstream compilers optimize the code to a decent extent.) permalink fedilink source parent
[–] herrvogel@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Modern compilers and interpreters are smart enough to figure out what you're trying to do and automatically do that for you. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ziviz@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 2 years ago Huh... That makes sense. Til. Ran some tests but speed is pretty similar. Only 4% faster using bitmath or 300 milliseconds difference after 10mil runs. permalink fedilink source parent
