Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dataio.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!mtuxo!mtunh!mtung!mtunf!ariel!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!uw-june!entropy!dataio!bright From: bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: Re: more questions about efficient C code Message-ID: <700@dataio.UUCP> Date: Wed, 10-Jul-85 07:56:18 EDT Article-I.D.: dataio.700 Posted: Wed Jul 10 07:56:18 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 12-Jul-85 04:58:25 EDT Reply-To: bright@dataio.UUCP (Walter Bright) Organization: Data I/O Corp., Redmond WA Lines: 13 In article <147@mips.UUCP> mash@mips.UUCP (John Mashey) writes: >It is also useful for human efficiency, once you become accustomed to the >idiom. Code must be read and understood by humans; less (signifcant, not >{}, (), etc) tokens are generally faster, within reasonable limits. >A similar example is OP= operators; i.e., x = x + 3 requires slightly >longer to read than x += 3, if only because you don't have tyo check that >the variables on the right and left are the same. Trivial in this case, >but less so when it's long_identifier1 += 3 instead of >long_identifier1 += long_identifier1 + 3; Also, when I program I think "ok, now add 3 to x". I do not think "ok, now take x, add 3 to it and stuff it back into x". I like the op= operators because they allow me to program the way I think.