> I do not expect you to read this gibberish, but notice how the result is now tighter. It is also going to be slightly faster. Well… I’m definitely no expert,

> I do not expect you to read this gibberish, but notice how the result is now tighter. It is also going to be slightly faster. Well… I’m definitely no expert, but I don’t think that’s great reasoning. His code has jumps in it that appear to be loops, just because the code is tighter doesn’t mean I can infer anything about where it will jump and how many times JUST based on how many lines or how “tight” it is. He’s right I’m sure that his second example is faster, I just don’t like that for an assumption.