On 18 February 2011 15:12, Mark McDonnell <[email protected]> wrote:
> Have a read of this > http://blog.getify.com/2011/02/pre-maturely-optimize-revisited/ by @Getify > where he talks about 'im/mature' optimisation and his thoughts on this > discussion. > > Personally, I think that it's such a minor tweak that I will always cache > the array length. Why wouldn't you? It doesn't make the code un-readable, > it's obvious to any level developer what's happening (i.e. it's not some of > the more cryptic 'micro-optimisations' that you can see sometimes), and it > does have a testable impact on performance if you don't do it. So (to me) it > seems like an easy choice to just go with caching the length. > > Kind regards, > Mark > > Thanks Mark, all good points, and a good read. However, in that blog, he does specifically say: Also, notice: I am *not* focusing on esoteric and minute micro-performance details (as some do, and many assumed I was). I made no mention of things like array.push() vs. array[array.length], or str += "..." vs. str = arr.join(), or ++i vs. i++, or for (i=0; i < arr.length; i++) {...}vs. for (i=0, len=arr.length; i<len; i++) {...}, etc etc etc. My feeling is that it does reduce the readability slightly, and I'm not sure whether that's worth it when i *know* it's not going to affect performance. Then again, if I got used to using it consistently, the readability issue wouldn't be so big a deal. -- Nick Morgan http://skilldrick.co.uk @skilldrick <http://twitter.com/skilldrick> -- To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To search via a non-Google archive, visit here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
