4 ms·
That was my point, I'm not expending cycles choosing between ++x and x++. I've just chosen a different default than most of the code I've seen, and you still ne
by mark-r 9y ago
That was my point, I'm not expending cycles choosing between ++x and x++. I've just chosen a different default than most of the code I've seen, and you still need to realize when the default doesn't do what you want - but that's usually obvious.
Sorry to hear about your unsuccessful projects, that's a bummer. I hope that premature optimization wasn't a major part of the blame for any of them.
- ben0x539 9y agoIt's so irritating that golang has x++ but not ++x. I never remember until shit isn't compiling. Grr!