Re: Init variable on declare
Robert Craig wrote:
> c.k.lester wrote:
> > amux wrote:
> > > I dream about this.
> > > func name -- function
> > > end name -- end function
> > > proc name2 -- procedure
> > > end name2 -- end procedure
> > RobC, how much of a speed increase could we expect in execution if we
> > reduced
> > the tokens from 'function' to 'func' and 'procedure' to 'proc?' The
> > interpreter
> > would be looking for 50% less text for each token (66% for
> > procedure)!!!!!!!!!!
> There would be zero increase in execution speed,
> and a 0.000000001% increase in parse speed.
What about the speed increase in DEVELOPMENT time? I examined my own code
base for BBCMF, and I found 320 occurrences of 'procedure.' If each time
I typed 'procedure' it took me one second, then using 'proc' would provide
a savings of a little over 3.5 minutes! And I really could have used those
precious minutes. My hands could have used the break from the repititious
typing of 'edure' 320 times. Maybe I should sue RobC to recoup the medical
bills I will no-doubt eventually have due to my carpal tunnel syndrome!!!!
> It would also break existing code.
Well, to hell with progress, eh?!?!?!!!???!?!!!?!?!?!!!
P.S. I am against init variable on declare, but won't mind if it is added
as long as there's no performance penalty in execution, parsing, and- what
RobC likes to conveniently forget- DEVELOPMENT TIME.
P.P.S. This would have been a good April Fool's Day post. :)
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
