this post was submitted on 28 Oct 2024
504 points (98.3% liked)
Programming Humor
2652 readers
261 users here now
Related Communities [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
Other Programming Communities [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Those are rookie lines of code numbers right there.
I would have done it without the
==
Don't know why their code returns false when they are equal but I'm not going to dig through old code to refactor to use true instead of false.
you can also use XOR operation
I was debating on bitwise operations, but decided on super basic if statements which I think the compiler would optimize, happy to see the logical operation form too
Put more curly brackets around your if (val) true statement for 4 more lines, put elses in there for more lines even.
I should have created a local variable to store the result variable and return after the if statements. I just couldn't help to make it look partially nice. My brain just doesn't think at this high caliber of LOC optimizations.
New optimized LOC version:
My previous LOC: 12
New LOC version: 27
Surely we could optimize the return value with a switch statement and store the result as an integer to hide the compiler warning about our clearly correct code:
New LOC: 35
Make the input variables nullable, then add checks if the values are null, then assign default values if they are, otherwise continue with the passed values.
Good idea but not feasible as that could introduce unknowns. Unfortunately making defaults when null is counterproductive as we are looking to increase LOC without introducing odd behavior and having no changes to how the overall function works. The only objective is to increase LOC.