> -----Original Message----- > From: Finn Bock [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [ Glen : ] > > Sigh...I guess I *didn't* know bytecode by heart after > > all! ;-) > > I didn't bring it up to discourage the use of static initialized arrays. > If it makes sense to put something in a static array we should do so > without concern of compiletime vs. runtime. After all, the > initialization is only performed once per classloader. > Well, (sorry to disappoint you, Peter) I don't know my BC by heart, but IIRC the real difference would be in the size of the compiled classes... See also a little trick I stumbled upon for for-loops. It's common(?) knowledge that testing for a value to be greater than (or equal to) another value, is the same as testing whether the result of their subtraction is greater than (or equal to) zero --rewriting this effectively saves a processor instruction per comparison. If you subsequently combine the test and the decrementing of the counter, you can slightly reduce the size of the compiled class further. In short: for( int i = 0; i < j ; ++i ) is better written as ( = faster; that is: it will save a few hundred millisecs in large loops, the few that might just be enough to give the average user the impression that the software is actually any faster than before ) for( int i = j; i > 0; --i ) and even better ( leads to even more compact compiled classes; performance-boost is negligeable with current hardware, but might turn out to be an advantage --albeit a minor one - when this class has to be loaded from a network location ) for( int i = j; --i >= 0; ) Cheers, Andreas
