267
More code = more better
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
267 points (97.8% liked)
Programmer Humor
39453 readers
83 users here now
Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to programming, programmers, or computer science.
- No NSFW content.
- Jokes must be in good taste. No hate speech, bigotry, etc.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
The compiler should be able to optimize all of them to the same machine code.
x==10, so as long as thenextInt()method doesn't have side effects, the loop should be eliminated. But, again, language semantics can affect this.~~Edit: Very wrong for 3 & 4, see replies.
I'd be shocked if 4 got optimised out
4 is used for non-deterministic delay - - - is Random.nextInt() also cryptographically secure?
I feel like an idiot. Also, in the "Good" example, no underflow occurs. i goes from 0 to -10, and x is assigned to -i every loop.
It might still be possible to optimize away the random number example, if the random function were made a magic language item, but it would not be even remotely close to being worth the effort.
The question the optimizer can't really answer is: will Random.nextInt() ever return 10? If that's a 64 bit integer it could be a LOOOOOONG time before 10 ever shows up.
If it were a magic lang item, you could treat the resulting value in a special way. Then, you could create an optimization pass for this situation: if a variable is assigned random in a loop and the loop can only be exited with a certain value, the compiler can coerce the magic rand value to it.
Ah yes the halting problem
For #4 if the Random instance weren't "new", then calling the nextInt() function would definitely have side effects, since the next integer would pull one away from the random stack.
However unlike the first three which will run within a consistent amount of time, #4 will take an unknown amount of time to run, so you can't just collapse it and eliminate the loop.
For example a very simple race game where a participant moves a random number of steps each turn, we may want to time how long that race takes. We can't just say that they will reach the end immediately. In fact technically we don't know that they will ever finish the race... But that's the halting problem and a whole other issue.
I don't know what I was thinking.
But, if you borrow C's semantics, you are allowed to "optimize" away side-effect-less loops, even if they would never terminate. But that would require the random method to be pure.
Still a mess to read though, anyone revewing the code will be like wtf?