Oddly enough, out of all of these the one the compiler has the best chance of optimizing out is the last one
/s
function myFunction() { try { x = new Random().nextInt(); if (x != 10) { throw "not 10"; } else { return (10) } catch(err) { myFunction() } } } x = myFunction()Commit notes: Added error handling
Returning 10 instead of x when x finally ends up being 10 really ties it together.
I’m glad you noticed. That was my favorite part too.
SyntaxError: Unexpected token ‘catch’
Coding on mobile is hard
I once was helping to organize the testing of town-level algorithmic competition for school students.
The competition had one entry level issue that was basically solvable by reading the question properly, recognising that it’s just multiplication of two numbers, and writing the simplest app ever.
And there was one student who passed the automatic tests. We had to read the code too for the protocol, just to make sure there was no cheating.
We looked in the code. What? Why? It had two nested for loops and a++ inside. When we understood what’s going on we couldn’t stop laughing for like solid ten minutes.
bad but more chaotic
you want to be punk rock not blues or jazz
The advantage of that last approach is that it has side effects and cannot therefore be optimized out by the compiler.
How about
x=x-x
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
x++
Freshman year of college doing assembly programming, I spent a while figuring out a “programmic” way to solve a problem, trying to wrangle labels and gotos. My friend came in with essentially this but as lookup table. It blew my mind.
It was then that I learned to trade space for complexity.
This is actually a valid brainf*ck program, but it results in 19, not 10.
How so? It’s only 10 increments
Because the only brainfuck instructions in your comment where a
-which decrements and 20+, each of which increments.
Mine echos the first two characters from stdin, because of the commas and dots.it’s been a long time since i looked at brainfuck, but i suspect that ‘+’ denotes an increment, and ‘-’ denotes a decrement, so we’ve got one decrement and 20 increments.
For a time on Reddit (some years ago when I still used it) there was a trend of finding the worst way of implementing
is_even(x: int) -> bool. My contribution to that was a function that ranAckerman(x,x)flipping a Boolean at every iteration, and check if it was true or false at the end.It works btw, I will find the proof later
I would love to see the implementaion.
The implementation is not very exciting, I capture a variable in python. It could have been done more cleanly.
The proof is this. But, I could have made mistakes, it was many years ago.
Note that in python you’ll never be able to run
is_even(5)the stack cannot handle itEdit: daaaamn, that variable is ugly as hell. I would never do things like that now.
Wants to be Pro but doesn’t even do it recursive…
function foo() { x = new Random(); case (x = 10): return (x); default: foo() }What unholy mix of languages is that? It is dominated by a blend of javascript and python, but with notes of something exotic. Maybe algol? or vhdl?, there is to little to tell.
Impressive, someone write up a spec and publish it to the esolang wiki.It’s an incoherent hodgepodge of C#/.NET, PowerShell, and JavaScript, each of which I’ve forgotten more about than I currently know
x = -i;
Do many languages let you do that? When it’s in front of a variable I would’ve expected it to be a subtraction operator only and you would need to do x = -1 * i;
In most languages I’ve seen - is both a unary negation operator and a subtraction operator depending on context. So it would negate an integer literal or a variable in this context.
Personally I would expect it to behave the same in front of a numeric literal and in front of a variable. I do think most languages do that, but I haven’t actually tested that many and could br wrong.
I just tested it in PowerShell. Works fine
$i = 1 $x = -$i $xOutputs -1
The compiler will optimize it anyway. /s
Not sure about the last one though. The other two are trivial to optimize away.
You jest, but you aren’t wrong. At least if we are talking about C, C++ or Rust. https://godbolt.org/z/oPPfdfcf5
.NET compiler is weak when it comes to optimizing your code; I assume Go’s is as bad.
Technically yes… But I think he was more making the excuse for the gore “from the goresmith’s perspective.”
And I’m not sure if the compiler in any language would change a random check function… The others are a possibility.
What is the value of x in the Good example before the loop?
Doesn’t matter, it’s 10 after the loop.
An int. Value doesn’t matter because it’s overwritten.
Not in this case. First, i is declared and assigned a value of 0. Next, x is declared and assigned a value of -i or -0. On the first loop iteration, i will decrement to -1, perform the conditional check, then execute the loop body which will assign x to -i or -(-1) or positive 1, and so on.
The only time a variable is created without a value is if you declare one without assigning a value like with
[int]i;
I know. OP asked what x was before the loop, and I just said it’s an int. The int can be any value because as you pointed out it will be set to 0 in the first loop iteration.
Shit, you’re right. x is declared inside the loop, so it doesn’t exist until the loop begins execution.
Technically, I suppose you could say the compiler will allocate memory for x without assigning a value before the loop is executed and… I’m understanding what you mean now, I think.
The code seems to be C-style language with curly braces and types in front for variable declarations, probably java. This means the variable must be declared of screen before the loop or it would not compile. It could have a previous value or be uninitialized, but that does not affect the end result.
Yeah, it does look like C now that I think about it. You’re right about the end result too. I believe C# will let you do inline declaration and assignment like that, so maybe that’s what we’re looking at? Been a while, could be wrong
I read in on C but it’s also true for JavaScript. The code implies that x was declared as an int sometime previously, or if JavaScript, just an object if not assigned a value giving it a type.
If this is JavaScript, it would have a value of -0, which is actually valid and works the same as normal zero thanks to type coercion. I think the only difference is some methods that detect if a number is negative will return true instead of false, but otherwise, JS treats -0 the same way as 0
4
Now write a function to unroll the while loop to “optimize it for the compiler”
