Here is a small quoted text from Andrea Giammarchi on "tweetter":
i++ returns a new Number with "i" value then increments the "i"
reference, while ++i execute just the second step -
that is why I prefer ++i
this should be the same with both pre-increment and pre-decrement
and in my tests while loops are generally faster than for loops.
On Dec 17, 11:58 am, Robert Kieffer <bro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Be sure you've unchecked the "normalize results" checkbox. That will get
> rid of the "infinite ops/sec".
> FWIW, that checkbox is provided as a way of subtracting out the time
> required to do an empty loop when computing test performance. In 99% of
> cases, where you're interested in testing the performance of what's inside
> the iteration loop and not the loop code itself, you want that box checked.
> In this particular case, though, we're testing empty loop performance, so it
> needs to be unchecked. (And, of course, subtracting out that time usually
> yields a zero result - hence the infinite ops/second. So, yeah, as long as
> you can break RSA keys using empty code blocks, knock yourself out!)
> - rwk ;-)
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:53 AM, T.J. Crowder
> > I'd post Chrome and Firefox results for Windows, but I kept getting
> > infinite numbers of operations per second! ;-) Chrome (of course!) did
> > an infinite number of ops/second on all of the tests. Firefox
> > alternated between infinite numbers of ++i and i++ operations -- so
> > probably a wash there too.
> > Now, since I apparently have the power to do infinite numbers of
> > calculations, I'm off to break some RSA keys...
> > -- T.J. ;-)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Prototype: Core" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at