440,375 Members | 1,095 Online
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 440,375 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

# Loops and compitency of recent CS grads

 P: n/a Just sort of curious because of a trend I've been noticing. Around here, most of the newer students and even some professionals that pick up C++ or another similar language tend to do inefficient things with loops / iterations, such as: array[0] = 0; for (int i =1; i < size; ++i) { array[i] = i; } or my favorite for (int i = 0; i < 2*size; ++i) { if (i % 2 == 0) dofunct(array[i/2]); else dootherfunct(array[i/2]); } Is proper iteration really that hard of a concept to grasp? Oct 28 '05 #1
15 Replies

 P: n/a It's "competency" ;) Josh Mcfarlane wrote: array[0] = 0; for (int i =1; i < size; ++i) { array[i] = i; } I may be outing myself as incompetent here, but what's wrong with this loop? Cheers, Andre Oct 28 '05 #2

 P: n/a in*****@gmail.com wrote: It's "competency" ;) Josh Mcfarlane wrote: array[0] = 0; for (int i =1; i < size; ++i) { array[i] = i; } I may be outing myself as incompetent here, but what's wrong with this loop? Sorry for the mispelling. =P Basically, in this example it may have been misleading, but I see code where they duplicate the initial value. A better example may have been array[0] += x for (int i = 1; i < size; ++i) { array[i] += x; } Or some other common operation that needs to be performed on the entire iteration. To me, it's code duplication and more of a hassle to maintain code where the initial iteration (0) is outside of the loop, while the remaining iterations are inside. Josh McFarlane Oct 28 '05 #3

 P: n/a On 2005-10-28, in*****@gmail.com wrote: It's "competency" ;) Josh Mcfarlane wrote: array[0] = 0; for (int i =1; i < size; ++i) { array[i] = i; } I may be outing myself as incompetent here, but what's wrong with this loop? He may wish it were the more idiomatic: for (int i = 0; i < size; ++i) { array[i] = i; } If I were to see the original code, with for (int i = 1; at the beginning, little alarms would start going off in my head, and I'd have to waste time proving to myself it wasn't wrong. -- Neil Cerutti Oct 28 '05 #4

 P: n/a On 2005-10-28, Josh Mcfarlane wrote: Just sort of curious because of a trend I've been noticing. Around here, most of the newer students and even some professionals that pick up C++ or another similar language tend to do inefficient things with loops / iterations, such as: or my favorite for (int i = 0; i < 2*size; ++i) { if (i % 2 == 0) dofunct(array[i/2]); else dootherfunct(array[i/2]); } Is proper iteration really that hard of a concept to grasp? The second loop just looks like nonsense. I can't think of an improvement other than erasing it. ;-) -- Neil Cerutti Oct 28 '05 #5

 P: n/a Neil Cerutti wrote: On 2005-10-28, Josh Mcfarlane wrote: Just sort of curious because of a trend I've been noticing. Around here, most of the newer students and even some professionals that pick up C++ or another similar language tend to do inefficient things with loops / iterations, such as: or my favorite for (int i = 0; i < 2*size; ++i) { if (i % 2 == 0) dofunct(array[i/2]); else dootherfunct(array[i/2]); } Is proper iteration really that hard of a concept to grasp? The second loop just looks like nonsense. I can't think of an improvement other than erasing it. ;-) It baffled me too, but more or less what they were trying to achieve was for(int i = 0; i < size; ++i) { dofunct(array[i]); dootherfunct(array[i]); } Now, why they didn't do that, I have no clue. Oct 28 '05 #6

 P: n/a "Josh Mcfarlane" wrote in message news:11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegro ups.com... Neil Cerutti wrote: On 2005-10-28, Josh Mcfarlane wrote: Just sort of curious because of a trend I've been noticing. Around here, most of the newer students and even some professionals that pick up C++ or another similar language tend to do inefficient things with loops / iterations, such as: or my favorite for (int i = 0; i < 2*size; ++i) { if (i % 2 == 0) dofunct(array[i/2]); else dootherfunct(array[i/2]); } Is proper iteration really that hard of a concept to grasp? The second loop just looks like nonsense. I can't think of an improvement other than erasing it. ;-) It baffled me too, but more or less what they were trying to achieve was for(int i = 0; i < size; ++i) { dofunct(array[i]); dootherfunct(array[i]); } Now, why they didn't do that, I have no clue. Your original post was about efficiency, but you seem to be commenting on clarity which is quite a different matter. Oct 28 '05 #7

 P: n/a Dave Townsend wrote: Your original post was about efficiency, but you seem to be commenting on clarity which is quite a different matter. Well, by efficiency I was more referring to the efficiency of the programmer and the overall effect it had on the code / program development (in this case, it made debugging it more pesky as I had to check two areas instead of one.) Adding a logic check each loop and looping twice as much as necessary seems inefficient to me as you're executing 2x the instructions necessary. Oct 28 '05 #8

 P: n/a Josh Mcfarlane wrote: Around here, most of the newer students and even some professionals that pick up C++ or another similar language tend to do inefficient things with loops / iterations, such as: I have seen many bad code over the years, don't think is a recent trend. In C++, C, Java, Pascal, Basic.... -- Salu2 Oct 28 '05 #9

 P: n/a Josh Mcfarlane sade: Neil Cerutti wrote:On 2005-10-28, Josh Mcfarlane wrote:Just sort of curious because of a trend I've been noticing.Around here, most of the newer students and even some professionalsthat pick up C++ or another similar language tend to do inefficientthings with loops / iterations, such as:or my favoritefor (int i = 0; i < 2*size; ++i){if (i % 2 == 0)dofunct(array[i/2]);elsedootherfunct(array[i/2]);}Is proper iteration really that hard of a concept to grasp?The second loop just looks like nonsense. I can't think of animprovement other than erasing it. ;-) It baffled me too, but more or less what they were trying to achieve was for(int i = 0; i < size; ++i) { dofunct(array[i]); dootherfunct(array[i]); } Now, why they didn't do that, I have no clue. A complex mind lacks simple thoughts =) TIT Oct 28 '05 #10

 P: n/a TIT wrote: A complex mind lacks simple thoughts =) Sometimes, but rarely do these over-the-top cases work as intended, which is part of what brought about this post. Oct 28 '05 #11

 P: n/a Josh Mcfarlane wrote: TIT wrote: A complex mind lacks simple thoughts =) Sometimes, but rarely do these over-the-top cases work as intended, which is part of what brought about this post. Why don't you show us a sample of your code? Thus, the coding problems may be inherent to a completely different source. Additionally, your English writing doesn't reflect any teacher/professorial attributes...can't say no more, for it is already off-topic... Oct 29 '05 #12

 P: n/a Josh Mcfarlane wrote: Just sort of curious because of a trend I've been noticing. Around here, most of the newer students and even some professionals that pick up C++ or another similar language tend to do inefficient things with loops / iterations, such as: Many people "know" a language, which often means one way of doing something and they are often unwilling to experiment or expand their knowledge. I've seen this a lot over the years and not just with junior staff. Ian Oct 29 '05 #13

 P: n/a puzzlecracker wrote: Why don't you show us a sample of your code? Thus, the coding problems may be inherent to a completely different source. Additionally, your English writing doesn't reflect any teacher/professorial attributes...can't say no more, for it is already off-topic... This wasn't about my code. This was about a common problem I noticed with loops and some of the programmers around here. I end up having to go in and fix things, not because they're unclear in meaning, but in attempting to be complex or doing things in the first mentioned example, they screw something up (such as record iteration) and it brings in undefined behavior. Oct 29 '05 #14

 P: n/a "Josh Mcfarlane" wrote in message news:11**********************@g43g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com... Just sort of curious because of a trend I've been noticing. Around here, most of the newer students and even some professionals that pick up C++ or another similar language tend to do inefficient things with loops / iterations, such as: array[0] = 0; for (int i =1; i < size; ++i) { array[i] = i; } A few ways this could come about. Some new programmer trying to think how to do something to a variable. "lets see. I want to initialize it to 0. That would be X = 0. Oh, X is an array, so I need X[0] = 0. There got it. Oh, gotta do the rest. lets see, already did 0 so..." Or, most likely. "Ahh, let me initialize my size variable array. for (int i = 1; i < size; ++i)" later "Dang, what bug, oh, forgot to initialize 0. Umm.. I'll just throw it up top." or my favorite for (int i = 0; i < 2*size; ++i) { if (i % 2 == 0) dofunct(array[i/2]); else dootherfunct(array[i/2]); } Is proper iteration really that hard of a concept to grasp? Actually, for people new to programming iteration is a total mystery. They still have a hard time understanding how X = X + 1 can be true when their algebra teacher told them both sides need to be equal... Just unlearning a lot of things and learning back over. I remember going through this phase many many years ago. When I didn't even understand 2/3 of what I wrote, but it worked dag nab it so it must be right! I better not touch it or I might break it again... Oct 29 '05 #15

 P: n/a Josh Mcfarlane sade: Just sort of curious because of a trend I've been noticing. Around here, most of the newer students and even some professionals that pick up C++ or another similar language tend to do inefficient things with loops / iterations, such as: I doubt that you'll only find irritating code in iterations. The recent decade of mass production of programmers may have led to a decay of the avarage programmers capabilities. I once accused a c++ teacher at a university in 2001 for teaching the concept of pointers way too late, and he replied: "You know, in Java you don't even have pointers." TIT Oct 29 '05 #16

### This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.