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.