On 26/01/2010 8:41 PM, Fairchild, Craig D wrote:
I would prefer simple as well:

BASE_VAL = 6
D = 0
IF B<  C THEN
   D = 1
ENDIF
A=BASE_VAL + D

Maybe a couple of instructions more but again still portable (See Craigs discussion on value of true) and I always like it to be clear that a variable is initialized, and a personal preference of mine is to limit else logic.

One stylistic note about a lot of java code is this:


         for (int i = 0; i<  files.length; i++) {
             if (files[i].isFile()) {
                 S3Object object = new S3Object(myBucket, files[i]);
                 myService.putObject(myBucket, object);
           }
         }


This drives me nuts and I much prefer:


         for (int i = 0; i<  files.length; i++)
	{
             if (files[i].isFile())
	    {
                 S3Object object = new S3Object(myBucket, files[i]);
                 myService.putObject(myBucket, object);
             }
         }


I realize that this is simple stylistic issue but I find the second set 
of code more readable.

Sincerely,

Neil

> One more vote on keeping it simple!
>
> I'm pretty sure method two always results in the answer 7. However, method 1 can result in either 5 or 7 depending on various systems and languages that I've worked on. Method 1 depends on false being equal to an integer value of 0 and a true being equal to an integer value of 1. Some systems/languages I've worked on define true as -1 (all bits on, as opposed to all bits off).
>
> By the way, I also agree with Roy that modeling the code as closely as possible to the physical reality of the problem trying to be solved is desirable. In my experience I haven't found these two goals to be contradictory, but rather positively reinforcing of each other.
>
> At the risk of beating this poor horse well after it is dead (and I know Ray was just trying to show the difference between "tricky" code and straight-forward code), I would never use method 1, but I would also think the equivalent to 2 should be something more like:
>
> BASE_VAL = 6
> IF B<  C THEN
>    D = 1
> ELSE
>    D = 0
> ENDIF
> A=BASE_VAL + D
>
> I find that when used, people try to justify method 1 as being "more efficient". If that was ever true (and it may have been at some point in the 1970s), it is certainly no longer so. In almost all cases, a few hundred instructions here and there really can't be measured (I/O and locks dominate wait times), and besides, modern compilers are really quite good at optimizing, so there is very likely no difference in the number of instructions executed by method 1 and 2. There is a difference in keystrokes that the coder had to type, and this is the type of "efficiency" that I think those folks really had in mind.
>
>
>    
>> -----Original Message-----
>> For example:
>>      
>>>                Given that A=0, B=1, C=2, we can arrive at A two (or
>>> more ways), one method (1) is clever (but difficult to understand);
>>>        
>> the
>>      
>>> second method (2) is simple (but very easy to understand) - and both
>>> methods arrive at the same answer, A=7.
>>>
>>>        1.      A=6+(B<C)
>>>        2.      IF B<C THEN
>>>                  A=7
>>>                ELSE
>>>                  A=6
>>>                ENDIF
>>>        
> * To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
> * etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *
>
>    


-- 
Neil Armstrong  [log in to unmask]


* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *