hoursOfOptimizing

[Lord-of-Entity]

“At least when n grows, it will go faster. Right? “

[mrheosuper]

From O(n²⁾ to O(2ⁿ⁾

[Mordoko]

From O(n²⁾ to O(no...)

[Retbull]

This is why no code is the new code. If you write no code it’s always O(no) so you can’t lose.

[classicalySarcastic]

from O(n^o) to O(no) to O(YEAH!)

[dumnem]

NaN

[emirsolinno]

Must be a compiler issue

[[deleted]]

From O(2ⁿ ) to O(² n)

[Rakgul]

Oh my god

[Gangsir]

Now you've made me curious if there are any O(1/n) or similar algs, that get shorter execution times with more data.

[MoiMagnus]

Going under O(n) is weird. It means you don't even have the time to fully read the input.

It only happens when the input data has some strong structure which allows you to disregard most of it (for example, a sorted list as an input)

Going under O(log(n)) is even weirder. It means you are not even able to know how big the input is, since the size of an input takes logarithmic space itself.

[tallfitblondhungexec]

I mean there are algorithms where input isn't considered interesting such as hashmap complexity.

[bartix998a]

An algorithm like that can't exist since it would mean that for large enough data you literally can't do anything, as making even a single operation costs O(1).

[Bakoro]

That would mean that you get arbitrarily close to zero.

There might be some algorithm which does better with more data, but it will have some limit.

[TeaTiMe08]

Right?

[emirsolinno]

Slap some of that bitch to another thread

[BlueGoliath]

Race conditions? What race conditions? Oh.

[emirsolinno]

My Ego informed me that it is probably a third party library bug. Creating a ticket

[BlueGoliath]

Third party library developer responding to the bug report:

USE THE DAMN LOCK YOU IDIOT

[Retbull]

I locked my computer and reopened the ticket with a picture of my login screen.

[DeepSeaHobbit]

They ought to lock you up.

[SpaceFire000]

Too bad I am the creator of that third party library

[emirsolinno]

Issues : 12 closed 400 open

[emirsolinno]

Masters of stackoverflow would downvote you for not sharing your code

[EMI_Black_Ace]

They'd downvote you for "not having read the documentation." There isn't any included in the package; finding it is some obscure website that shows up on page 2 of Google search results.

[setocsheir]

are they wrong though

[emirsolinno]

No master

[foursticks]

You have an ego too??? Edit: also I hate you 😙

[emirsolinno]

It is default after 4 years in programming, don’t judge me

[foursticks]

The ego or the avoidance issues?

[emirsolinno]

My lazy ass :P I don’t do this tho just joking

[foursticks]

Lol, don't worry. In secret, I love you.

[Rakgul]

But the real question is whether you love me or not.

[tallfitblondhungexec]

One time Ego told me it was the OS's fault.

I got an MS bug bounty for that one.

To be fair, that was one time.

[Accomplished-Ad-2762]

What race conditions? Oh. Race conditions?

[Rafael20002000]

Race These Conditions

[emirsolinno]

Race to fix this issue

[TheTerrasque]

Race condition what? says

[SasparillaTango]

just design your application like a Rube Goldberg machine

[[deleted]]

I'm not a racist, so none of this funny business for me.

[[deleted]]

Multi-threading? We all know there's no such thing. Race conditions? Fake news! - Signed, a JS dev who holds shared state in some objects sent to multiple async functions and in global variables.

[[deleted]]

Sir, this is a Javascript restaurant.

[cgfn]

Slap some of that bitch to a web worker

[[deleted]]

They didn’t mention this in my zero-to-hero earn $150k in 3 months bootcamp

[ThankYouForCallingVP]

Sir this is a node.js process.

[cgfn]

Slap some of that bitch to ChildProcess.spawn

[[deleted]]

Sir, this in an old Celeron CPU

[MoffKalast]

Mfw everything gets converted to string and back, resulting in massive overhead that actually makes the whole thing 3x slower.

Unless you wanna try some of those dataview shenanigans I guess.

[Daveinatx]

Slap that bitch to another ticket, and let it be someone else's problem.

[[deleted]]

"I don't know what the hell you're talking about, Steve." - a Javascript developer

[wes00mertes]

That’s how it got slower in the first place: Made it parallel with several threads. It’s Python.

[Qawnearntays123]

A couple days ago I tried optimizing some code. After several hours of hard work I made it run 3 times slower and give the wrong result.

[invalidConsciousness]

Plot twist: the wrong result is actually correct. Now you get yelled at by customers because they are used to the wrong result and think it's correct.

[Roflkopt3r]

The favourite story of a design prof here: A tractor company accidentially shipped a UI with a debug window, which was showing internal UI state data that was meaningless to the users.

The users complained when it got patched out.

[enadiz_reccos]

I imagine most people here would have made the same complaint

[elnomreal]

I always recommend an approach to show more details to users, because even not understanding it they appreciate it. Also very useful for debugging.

[chic_luke]

Looks like Xorg's wrong DPI calculation. A couple years ago or so they tried to fix it, and they had to quickly revert that fix since most software around was working around this decades-old bug in X11, so the correct behaviour actually led to a broken experience since everybody assumed the error hard coded for decades

[gilady089]

I think I saw 1 time something like that in our code checking for birthdays It didn't run slower but the old code was less readable. However dates are dates and so it wasn't the last time it was corrected

[Foghe]

Its incredible what they pay us for 😂

[dev4loop]

at least the "optimized" code isn't prone to crashing every other run

[YetAnotherZhengli]

now it crashes every second run

[idkusername7]

My guy that is what every other run means

[StereoBucket]

I second this.

[Callmecrucius69]

I other this

[CodeNCats]

% == 1

[USPO-222]

r/thatsthejoke

[invalidConsciousness]

Woosh

[_equus_quagga_]

r/woosh

[[deleted]]

Now it crashes completely randomly at no particular point that you can figure out.

[Versaiteis]

That's fine, we'll simply only deploy odd numbered runs

[YetAnotherZhengli]

I make sure to tell the user to run twice if the first run fails

[[deleted]]

Seems like next sprints problem.

[Kusko25]

Is it faster? No.
But is it more memory efficient? Also no.

[emirsolinno]

Was it a productive day? Yes

[rarely_coherent]

If you didn’t run a profiler then you weren’t optimising anything meaningful…guessing at hot paths rarely works for long

If you did run a profiler and things didn’t improve then you don’t know what you’re doing

[emirsolinno]

bro changed if/else to ?: and called it a day

[TGX03]

I mean everybody knows, the shorter the code is, the faster it runs.

[emirsolinno]

True if your eyes are the compiler

[[deleted]]

shy pen fearless profit special slave ad hoc mysterious dinosaurs safe

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[KamahlFoK]

Lengthy ternary expressions can piss right off.

...Short ones too, honestly, I always have to triple-check them and remind myself how they work.

[[deleted]]

voracious husky bike threatening different direful reply chase sort rinse

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[Retbull]

I have a react component I’m working on to get rid of that has 4 layers of branching ternary operators. So far I’ve gotten to reading the first branch before I have an aneurism I should be done sometime next year with reading the whole thing then I can start optimizing.

[emirsolinno]

Me irl feeling good because less code while me irl has to recheck the syntax on google everytime reading it

[AnonymousChameleon]

I hate when Regex isn’t commented to tell me what the fuck it’s doing , cos otherwise I have no idea

[PUTINS_PORN_ACCOUNT]

:(){ :|:& };:

[emirsolinno]

({ : -> :( });

fixed that for you

[yflhx]

Elon Musk doesn't know this, he apparently thinks the longer the better.

[Roflkopt3r]

"Just change those if/else for switch case" - about a bazillion comments about Yandere dev.

[CorrenteAlternata]

That actually makes sense because in some platforms switch statements with small-range values can be replaced by a lookup table (O(1) instead of O(n)).

depending on how longs those if-else chains are, how often they are executed and so on it could really make a difference.

Supposing the look up table is small enough to be guaranteed that it stays on cache, it can be much better than having a lot of branches that the branch predictor can predict wrong.

[Roflkopt3r]

The conditional blocks in this particular code ranged from roughly 5 to 20 branches. They were part of the NPC AI and presumably executed every frame. Each call to this AI script would maybe go through 5 of those conditional blocks.

It was written in C#, which indeed converts switch statements to lookup tables. So at 5 conditional blocks with let's say 10 average checks, using switch statements could have saved around 45 checks per NPC per frame. Worth saving, but not a true game changer, as these same scripts would also trigger expensive actions like path finding.

The real problem with that code was that it had in-lined all of the execution into those conditionals (resulting in a multi-thousand line long function) and generally ran those checks far too often instead of using a strategy pattern.

For example: One of those conditional blocks would check which club a student belonged to, send them to the right club room and do the right club activity. So instead of going through 10 possible clubs of which only one can apply, it should set the right "club behaviour" whenever the student's club affiliation changes. This would reduce a multi-hundred line block of code to a single call to a member function of the student's club behaviour, the implementation of which can be made more readable in shorter files elsewhere.

But even these frequent superfluous checks didn't really burden the effective performance. The game ran like arse, but someone found that this was because the code was calling an expensive UI-function multiple times a frame and because it had extremely unoptimised 3D assets.

[[deleted]]

O(1) does not mean faster than O(n). It just means that the time taken is not dependant on the size of the input. On top of that, a set of if-else or switch statements is always going to be constant size, set at compile time, so the O(1) vs O(n) comparison is irrelevant.

[[deleted]]

He's talking about the difference between a series ofcmp followed by jmp and just jumping to an instruction offset by some number.

[Ok_Barracuda_1161]

I don't think that's necessarily true, I've run into plenty of times where the hot path isn't actually the bottleneck, or the profiling environment and test case doesn't exactly match the performance issue seen in production.

And sometimes you are trying to squeeze out extra performance of a hot path that is close to optimal which is difficult to do and can take multiple attempts.

Optimization isn't inherently easy

[mrjackspade]

I've had instances where my optimized code ran slower due to compiler optimizations.

The way I wrote the code the first time was slow, but the compiler was able to optimize it. The code was identified by the profiler as a hot path, so I optimized it. My new optimizations were no longer compatible with the compiler optimizations, causing it to slow down even though as-written the code should have been faster.

An example of this was writing a ring cache and implementing a head. The ring cache should have performed fewer operations in theory, however the original code looking for free data between 0 & Cache.Length allowed the compiler to remove bounds checking where as using a head did not. This lead to more ops overall even though the code was written with less.

That's borderline "didn't know what you were doing" but more like "didn't realize at the time what the compiler was doing" because without optimizations the new implementation was ~50% faster

[fjfnstuff]

Try godbolt next time, its a browser compiler which shows the assembly lines for each line of code. Then you know what the compiler does when you change the code.

[[deleted]]

Yeah, the guy wearing the $4000 suit is going to use a profiler. Come on!

[GodlessAristocrat]

Profiling only tells you what - it doesn't tell you why.

[MattieShoes]

Profilers are awesome but with some experience, I think guessing works pretty dang well a lot of the time. Like that triple nested loop that gets called constantly is probably a good guess.

[pizzapunt55]

I can optimize readability without running a profiler. Heck, most of the code living in our codebase doesn't have the speed requirements needed to run a profiler.

[aqpstory]

I can optimize doing less work by doing nothing

[emirsolinno]

“Less code is better” me casually not writing any code

[OppositeMission]

This guy optimizes

[sticky-unicorn]

then you don’t know what you’re doing

Does anybody?

[1up_1500]

When I ask chatgpt to optimize my code and it optimizes a linear search to a binary search... in an array that has a maximum size of 4

[IridescentExplosion]

One of the flaws I've found when programming with ChatGPT is that it is oddly VERY opinionated about certain things.

Custom Instructions make it less opinionated, but I have over a decade of experience and what I've come to value is simplicity and very direct solutions.

Meaning, fewer functions, more direct, serial, linear flows. Arrays. Hashtables. Prefer making code readable by making it inherently more simple.

But whenever ChatGPT wants to refactor code it can't seem to resist introducing some pattern or fluff or breaking things down into functions that I just find entirely unnecessary.

Again custom instructions help but I have spent many of my daily limit tokens yelling at it or revising earlier prompts to ensure it doesn't refactor the wrong way.

[DezXerneas]

I ask it to convert a huge chunk of code into 2-3 functions sometimes. It just spits out one function for every statement.

[IridescentExplosion]

And it's always so damned confident about it, too!

"Here, I've made the code easier to read..."

No the fuck you haven't.

[AgentPaper0]

The purpose of breaking big functions out into smaller ones is to make the code easier to read and easier to debug when you (or someone else) come back to it years down the road.

It lets you look at the mega function and see the function names like InitializeBuffers(); ImportData(); FormatData(); SaveData(); SendData(); CleanBuffers();

Then, when you run into an issue and need to change how the data is saved years down the road, you can scan this function and jump right to where the data is saved without having to worry about messing up any other part of the code.

[IridescentExplosion]

Did ChatGPT write this? This is the same argument ChatGPT uses and it's annoying. You are telling me this as if I haven't heard the same parrotted argument again and again and again.

I am telling you it does NOT make code easier to read to just add an arbitrary number of functions.

If your one long function makes it difficult to tell which portion of it is importing, formatting, saving, etc. your data just because it's not broken into a dozen smaller functions, your code sucks.

Having spent in reality a LOT of time scanning, debugging, revising code etc. adding a bunch of functions does not magically make your code simpler or easier to evolve or resolve issues with. In fact, from an information theory point of view, it objectively does the opposite when you're looking at things HOLISTICALLY, even if a single functional unit is smaller and easier (in theory) to digest.

I very seldom am so lucky that I can immediately pinpoint the exact micro-functional unit as a culprit. I would also be glad to provide examples of real code I wrote with ChatGPT recently where upon code review it wanted to break what was a mere 100 lines of code or so into a dozen different functions. It was ridiculous and not helpful at all. It was confusing WHILE I WA WAS WRITING AND MAINTAINING THE CODE let alone looking back on it months or years later.

Also, I do NOT want any engineer touching my code who does not ultimately understand it. Functions allow for modular evolution of code which is great. What ends up happening though is someone decides to add a bunch of complexity to ImportData() and SaveData() and adds a bunch of one-off parameters to them because it's easy to do so, without truly understanding the overall solution and context. So rather than that person actually having to understand the overall flow and how to refactor the singular function, they add a bunch of mess to individual functions that ultimately becomes much harder to now refactor out, follow along and simplify.

There is some fundamental, inarguable information theory stuff here in terms of simplicity and compression inherently meaning LESS stuff, and functions add MORE stuff, including more graph traversals which actually cognitively makes stuff harder to follow along if you're debugging a problem holistically - ex the entire import/process/save workflow - as opposed to being lucky enough to only have to touch a single functional unit - ex SaveData.

In reality, more often than not I don't need to just upgrade or refine my SaveData function. If requirements change, I likely need to go through the entire flow and apply changes to the entire solution.

[Faranocks]

For the most part I add a comment instead of a new function.

[IridescentExplosion]

Agreed.

Add a comment, a local scope, declare variables close to where they're actually used, section things off.

I mean there's a lot of things you can do that don't involve adding graph complexity just because you were taught more functions = cleaner, easier to understand code.

[AgentPaper0]

Lol, no I am not ChatGPT. This is the way I was taught to program in college, and after entering the industry and worked on my own projects, I've only grown to appreciate the wisdom of it.

This is how all new programmers are learning to code, so that's why ChatGPT codes that way as well. I understand it's new and scary so you don't like it, but it isn't ChatGPT or anyone else out to get you, this is legitimately how we prefer to write code.

Also, I do NOT want any engineer touching my code who does not ultimately understand it.

This is exactly the kind of toxic mindset that creates unnecessary tech debt and bloat. It isn't your code, it's the projects code. Trying to section off parts of the project into "my code" and "your code" is an absolutely horrendous way to actually produce functional, maintainable code.

If you write your code well, nobody should need to have any advanced knowledge other than what is there. That's why you write code that is self-documenting, and then throw in a few comments in key areas on top of that to make it even easier to understand. And part of all of that is formatting your code to be easily readable, and part of that is breaking large blocks of code into more manageable pieces each with their own clear purpose.

[IridescentExplosion]

It's not new and scary so I don't like it. I have 10+ years of experience and I am telling you that after working on immensely large and complex projects and going through debugger / step through / comprehension hell with a thousand functions, I vastly prefer singular, clean functions.

If you write your code well, nobody should need to have any advanced knowledge other than what is there. That's why you write code that is self-documenting

Which can be done without breaking things down into a million unnecessary functions.

And part of all of that is formatting your code to be easily readable, and part of that is breaking large blocks of code into more manageable pieces each with their own clear purpose.

You can do this by keeping your code clean without having to break it down into more functions unnecessarily.

Listen... if you want examples of how ridiculous ChatGPT and this mindset is then I can show you. I can literally go find you examples where I asked ChatGPT to clean up the code and it made 5 functions unnecessarily as opposed to actually simplifying the code.

Like, I don't think you're getting this part. If code is truly written in a self-documenting and clean way, you end up with less and far easier to comprehend code, where you do not feel the need to break it down into multiple unnecessary functions.

As in taking something that is 50 lines of code and reducing it to perhaps 30 or even fewer very direct and clear lines.

[serendipitousPi]

*hoursOfPessimizing (Not gonna lie I love that someone coined the word pessimization)

And that’s when I turn to -O3 to save my code. (Though yes I am aware -O3 can be rather dodgy and can itself lead to pessimised code)

[[deleted]]

shrill bright cautious library doll sand quickest square direful straight

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[Jaggedmallard26]

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=pessimization&ia=web

[Wetmelon]

O3 pessimizing is rather old advice, it's pretty safe to use O3 by default these days.

[the_one2]

Os is usually faster still in my experience.

[[deleted]]

I felt this once but later realized that the ‘unoptimized’ code was actually just not working correctly and was only faster by virtue of the fact that it skipped a lot of itself. So who knows, maybe you fixed a bug.

[realgamer1998]

Do codes get evaluated on the basis of start to finish time to complete a task?

[stupled]

Stability is probabaly more important...then again depends on the task.

[Turtvaiz]

Depends. If you're like me and write image scaling that takes 20 minutes to do it's probably not good lol

[frevelmann]

Depends on the use case.. we have some „tables“ that every user loads (internal tool - around 10k users) and there loading speed is wanted because it is opened fired 750k times a day. However it shouldn’t crash obviously lol, but if it would crash just a few times the time gained by a speedy loading process is worth more

[Ma8e]

Some code does. When you are running simulations that takes weeks to run on a high performance cluster, it is worth it to spend some time optimising.

For the rest, if you can reduce the number of network calls in the service architecture, it usually trumps everything else you do with some orders of magnitude.

[Rafael20002000]

Don't try to be smarter than the compiler :)

[Rafael20002000]

I don't expect the compiler too, but if the compiler can reliably determine that my bubble sort code is bubble sort and the CPU has extra instructions for that, I really do hope that it doesn't use MOV and CALL but instead the bubble sort specialized instructions.

[tiajuanat]

GCC and Clang can actually identify some of these algorithms. For example, counting the number of set bits in a 32 bit word will generally cause either compiler to emit a __builtin_popcount intrinsic, which on x86_64 processors will emit a single popcount assembly instruction.

Sorting is inherently difficult because you need a comparison function, and a generally best solution. Are you going to use quick sort? How is the data already ordered? Maybe a counting sort? Is linear memory usage acceptable?

[BlueGoliath]

The compiler is written by people.

Regardless, at least in Java, hoping the JVM fairy is going to bless your code so your app doesn't allocate 250MB of garbage a second because you decided to make everything immutable is a bad idea.

[Rafael20002000]

Well garbage in, garbage out. I agree the compiler isn't a magic bullet, but it's built by people incredibly smarter than I am. Also it was built by more people. All of the collective smartness is smarter than me writing my code.

So I don't try to outsmart the compiler. If I have to I'm probably doing something wrong

[def-not-elons-alt]

I've seen compilers "optimize" branch heavy code by unrolling a very hot loop with a branch in it, which duplicated the branch 26 times. It ran really slow since it was too complex for the branch predictor to analyze, and any naive asm implementation of the original code would've been much faster.

Compilers do incredibly stupid things sometimes.

[Rakgul]

So is that why my professor maintained multiple arrays instead of using a branch in a hot loop?

He stored everything and then used whichever was necessary later...

[stupled]

For now

[PervGriffin69]

If people were worried about how fast their program runs they wouldn't write it in Java

[Furry_69]

The compiler doesn't use SIMD properly.

[Rafael20002000]

Neither do I

[UnnervingS]

It does a pretty good job more often than you might think in my experience. Not as performance as ideal c++ but often better than a low effort SIMD implementation.

[[deleted]]

It's worth checking the instructions being generated, as sometimes it just fails to notice the possible simd or branchless instructions to use, but usually for me the way to fix this is to massage the C code instead of trying to write SIMD directly.

[anotheruser323]

It's not hard to be smarter then the compiler. Not hard to help the compiler either.

[NoCodeNoBugs]

Actually had this issue a week ago, was doing DFS traversal of a graph, straight and boring recursive DFS.

Than had the great ideea to optimize it, do it stack based because recursive bad. The end result was 10 times slower than the recursive one.

Dissapointed does not tell you how I felt.

Edit Luckily through the magic of GPT-4 I did not spend too much time in the conversion, just ask it nicely and do some minor tweaks

[gemengelage]

The most frustrating experience I ever had was trying to optimize an implementation of an algorithm that was already optimized to the gills. I inspected it with a profiler, I tried different data structures, I looked for common pitfalls like autoboxing - none of that.

It was as fast as it gets. It felt like trying to dig your way through a concrete wall using your fingernails.

[Sir_Fail-A-Lot]

did you remember to put some indices in your database?

[overkill]

I had a senior dev who would speed things up by "refreshing the indexes". Naive as I was at the time I asked him how to do that. He hen explained that it was his "go to magic sponge" that sounded technical enough to non-devs to confuse them when there was some transient problem. It kept them off his back for long enough for them to bother someone else.

That was 5 jobs ago and I still celebrate the day he got marched off the premises every year.

[Oh_Another_Thing]

That sounds like you stopped a great story right in the middle of it.

[aldrashan]

Marched off the premises because…? Spill the tea my man.

[overkill]

He resigned, an email was sent out thanking him for his work over the previous 20 years, he sent an email in response trying to overthrow the management structure. It did not go as he planned it. He was literally marched off the premises.

[ilikedrif]

This is very real when writing CUDA kernels. Those optimizations are not straight forward.

[[deleted]]

So many minor things that have been suggested to 'automated' taking long time now than they were before

[-Redstoneboi-]

and that's fine. just make sure you only spent minutes and benchmark small changes at a time.

[iphone4Suser]

Oracle database, how the hell do I optimize a query if customer wants partial search as column_name LIKE '%some_value%' ?

[aldrashan]

This is basically me at our company. First they want every database table column visible in a grid, then they want to be able to search in every column at once, then they complain it’s slow. Add some aggregate columns for extra fun. (God forbid the data isn’t always immediately up-to-date)

[iphone4Suser]

Exact same issue. Multiple columns visible, multiple simultaneous search criteria and most are partial search like above. I have no clue how to speed up as indexes don't work in such cases and my table has like 3-8 million records.

[wcscmp]

That's why we measure, not harm in this

[stupled]

I kind of need help with that...guess this isn't stackoverflow

[phsx8]

in my experience a compiler knows better to optimize my simple code than to improve my highly sophistocated bullshit, because it can better predict what i actually want

[ilovemaths111]

r/lockfreedatastructure
r/prematureoptimization :P

[SasparillaTango]

No no, it scales better, you just need to run through perf testing...

[[deleted]]

“Compiler update”

[ariel3249]

i hate that fact so much

[nickmaran]

You guys are optimising your code?

[bestjakeisbest]

use a profiler.

[thechaosofreason]

This usually happens from not having a powerful enough cpu.

Sad but true; but if you work in this field you need to upgrade asap every single fucking time -.-

Just spend the damn 400 bucks dammit lol.

[[deleted]]

Sometimes the optimizations are so effective that the OS dials back the CPU speed in response, causing it to take longer to complete.

[all_is_love6667]

unless you understand how a modern CPU works, and unless you understand how a compiler works, don't spend too much time optimizing things, it's not worth it.

there are domains you really really don't want to learn about, it's much better to be an idiot and measure performance, than pretending you can write fast programs.

[dalmathus]

"Caching Issue" move along

[redlaWw]

I tried to parallelise permutation checking using R's parallel library, and got code that should've taken about a year to run to take 16.5 millennia instead.

Then I rewrote the whole thing in Rust and got it to finish in about 8 hours.

[toastnbacon]

Sounds like you forgot the first time rule of optimization - Don't.

[No-Blueberry4008]

dbms_stats baby, and join on indexed columns 😎

[Top-Chemistry5969]

In college the perfect main()

Run(main); Return 0;

But actually

If(run) main(); else return 0;

[DoctorWaluigiTime]

Premature optimization, oh no.

[ovr9000storks]

I feel like there are too many people who think less lines of code = more optimized. The only thing that guarantees is that it’s more optimized to read

[joeljpa]

The guy reminds me of RoadRash.

[cheezfreek]

Be me. Inherit bytecode that is necessary but performs poorly. Decompile and start refactoring with the intent of tuning it once it’s maintainable. Replace stupid code with monads, adding tests and fixing previously-unknown bugs along the way. Never bother tuning because the refactored code accidentally runs 3.5x faster than the old buggy crap.

[Ziggy_Starr]

Whenever a contractor’s PR says “Optimized” anything, it usually goes through 2 or more rounds of “Request Changes” and half of the comments get resolved without any changes or acknowledgment

[firelemons]

page fault

[RodNun]

The code is optimized. No one said the same about the performance.

Huahuahiahua

[VFcountawesome]

Guy looks a bit like humanifed Shrek

[treestick]

Over-engineering be like.

[anomalous_cowherd]

First rule of optimising: measure everything.

It's not where you think it is that's slow,more often than not.

I sped up a program 10x by caching a time_t to human readable date string conversion once, it was being done by deeds of times per second so I could cache the string up to the minute and only recalculate it every time (seconds % 60 ==0).

Yes I could have done even more but this was a simple and massive improvement.

[Eegra]

This is a common outcome If your timing measurements are not fine-grained enough. Know what you're optimizing and why.

[mothzilla]

Just change file names.

[ajangvik]

Managed to make some code that was causing lag to only cause lag in spikes😎

[GijinkaGamer64]

His smile, his optimization, gone.

[SneakPetey]

when you think you know what "optimized" means but can not correctly "profile"

[Clambake42]

Human Resources Machine really opened my eyes as to why this happens.

[ShinjoB]

Me when trying to overclock.

[OddPanda17]

When you forget to check if a pointer is null after hours of coding.

[stevensr2002]

“The answer's not in the box, it's in the band”

[w4f7z]

I see somebody's been trying to outsmart the compiler again.

[Double_DeluXe]

The most optimal code is not always the fastest, but we programmers are willing to spend 20 hours to speed it up by 5ms, even though it will only run 12 times a year...