Sorry, couldn't resist commenting on the term cognitive cruft! I love it! :))
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 12:37, Maciek Sakrejda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Interesting. I decided to actually try my test above, and on 1000000 > items, the for-each version takes ~50 milliseconds, versus ~25 > milliseconds for the explicitly indexed loop. When doing some actual > work in the loop (a trace), the numbers are 41.9 seconds for the > for-each and 41.1 seconds for the indexed for. On a loop with a trace > with 100 items, both forms take ~5 milliseconds. This is rather > unscientific, but I don't have the profiler available (will it ever make > it to Linux, Adobe?). > > So yes, it looks like for-each is a lot slower in some cases, but I'll > maintain it still probably won't make a difference unless you've got a > massive loop that does very little, or a deeply nested set of loops. > > Consider also the readability and maintainability benefits of a > for-each: unless you need the index, it's just one more place to > introduce bugs when refactoring, and it's cognitive cruft when trying to > follow what's going on. > > -- > Maciek Sakrejda > Truviso, Inc. > http://www.truviso.com >
