3 ms·
I've seen that too. I don't think it was intentional -- the programmer simply didn't understand what the existing code structure was for, and "defactored" it.
by iron_ball 16y ago
I've seen that too. I don't think it was intentional -- the programmer simply didn't understand what the existing code structure was for, and "defactored" it.
- gjm11 16y agoJust think of all the function-call overhead he saved!
- jpk 16y agoThere are actually systems where this is a non-trivial gain. I've heard some of the Extream software (since acquired by HP) guys tell stories about having to inter-operate with ancient mainframes their customers refused to replace. In order to get throughput on some of the logic up to an acceptable level, they had to do just this. Amdahl's Law, a-gogo!