Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #164101
| From | Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.c |
| Subject | Re: Can this program be improved? |
| Date | 2021-12-29 11:33 -0800 |
| Organization | A noiseless patient Spider |
| Message-ID | <sqid71$bnf$1@dont-email.me> (permalink) |
| References | <sq63mi$gom$1@dont-email.me> <sq6b3t$ce5$1@dont-email.me> <sqi3p9$1bia$1@gioia.aioe.org> <sqi72e$q7e$1@dont-email.me> |
On 12/29/2021 9:49 AM, Bart wrote: > On 29/12/2021 16:52, Guillaume wrote: >> Le 25/12/2021 à 06:44, Andrey Tarasevich a écrit : > > >>> 1. int main(void) >>> >>> 2. Stop using `float` for local variables. "Default" floating-point >>> type in C is `double`. Everything else is used only if you have a >>> good reason to do that. In this case you don't. >>> >>> 3. Stop using "regular" floating point types for representing >>> monetary quantities. They are not good for that purpose. >>> >>> 4. It appears that you are actually trying to use `float` to >>> represent _integer_ quantities (judging by your `printf`). Why? >>> >>> 5. Stop using `pow` for calculating integer powers. You don't really >>> need `<math.h>` here. >>> >>> 6. Stop piling up all variable declarations at the beginning of the >>> function. Declare variables as locally as possible. >>> >>> 7. Stop using dummy initializers for your variables. It is better to >>> leave them uninitialized than initialize them to dummy zeros. This >>> point is actually connected to the previous one: once you start >>> declaring variables as locally as possible, you'll normally have a >>> meaningful initializers for them at the point of declaration. >>> >>> 8. What's going on with capitalization in your variables names? >>> `Opening`, `closing`, `interest`, `Total`? Is this a convention of >>> some sort? >>> >>> 9. "Magical constants"? What on Earth is `1200`? >>> >>> 10. Repetitive subexpressions, like `1 + r / 1200` (some explicit, >>> some slightly obfuscated) are probably a matter of style.... But >>> anyway: DRY - do not repeat yourself. >> >> All good points! >> > > 2) Nothing wrong with using 'float' when it's appropropriate. Many > libraries eg. OpenGL make extensive use of float. That's just emphasizes my the point. The main purpose of "small" types, like `float`, `short`, char as plain integer, bit-fields etc. is to save memory in quantitatively massive data structures. That's exactly what OpenGL is intended to work with: massive amounts of geometric data. That's why it opts for `float` Everything else is just a consequence of that. > It's not obvious that C's /default/ float type is 'double', nor that > 'float' is not the default float type, despite the name! It doesn't have to be obvious. That's why I state it explicitly. > 6) I just don't agree with this at all. I like all the cluttery > declarations out of the way of the logic, Declarations are never cluttery, unless you make a deliberate effort to make them that. > and in one place for quick reference. Piling up all variable declarations in one place makes for much slower reference: first, one has has to find the pile, then one has to sift through the pile. Local declarations are always instantly visible, making for much quicker reference. Basically, with local declarations the matter of "reference" is virtually non-existent: the required knowledge is almost always naturally and intuitively present within the field of view. The popular counter-argument stating that "functions have to be small with small number of variables" is nothing else that a fake advice whose only purpose is to serve as an emergency brace for the cracking and crumbling bad practice of piling up variable declarations. > Then you also know there are no multiple, incompatible > instances of any local identifier. This is a classic "solution looking for a problem": a solution for a problem that does not really exist in the first place. > 7) I think initialisers are a good idea. Some languages will ensure such > locals are set to a known starting value, like 0 or 0.0 for static > types; presumably they think that is a benefit. It definitely has a benefit: it works as a bootstrapping point for static/dynamic initialization. I.e. gives you a reliable anchoring point: something that is guaranteed to be there "even before the programs starts", without you having to worry about the initialization and associated ordering issues. No other reason. And this, of course, does not apply outside of static initialization contexts. The only thing you achieve by using dummy initializers is defeat checks performed by static/dynamic analysis tools. -- Best regards, Andrey Tarasevich
Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Can this program be improved? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-25 01:00 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-12-24 21:44 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-25 12:56 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-25 11:13 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-25 23:50 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-26 18:52 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-12-26 19:22 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-26 21:30 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-26 22:02 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2021-12-26 18:24 -0500
Re: Can this program be improved? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-12-27 00:47 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2021-12-29 17:52 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-29 17:49 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-12-29 11:33 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-29 22:45 -0500
Re: Can this program be improved? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-12-30 00:35 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-30 10:19 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-01 18:19 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-01 19:33 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-29 14:37 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-29 23:09 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-12-29 23:54 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-29 16:11 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-30 00:34 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-30 12:49 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-30 21:04 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-31 02:13 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-29 16:09 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-30 00:59 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-29 17:48 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-30 20:47 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-30 01:06 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-12-30 04:48 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-30 18:16 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-31 02:20 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-31 18:25 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-31 18:13 -0500
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-31 23:59 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? "james...@alumni.caltech.edu" <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-31 16:20 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-31 16:35 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-01 00:53 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-31 20:22 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-12-31 22:04 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-01 14:59 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-02 17:22 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-02 20:49 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 03:09 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-03 16:22 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 14:42 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 14:52 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-01-03 22:58 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 04:27 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-01-04 13:39 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-01-04 00:18 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 15:24 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 15:43 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-01-03 21:19 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Mateusz Viste <mateusz@xyz.invalid> - 2022-01-04 09:23 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2022-01-04 18:18 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 10:35 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 14:07 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 15:11 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 15:47 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 18:30 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-04 23:46 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-04 18:41 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 10:52 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-04 19:00 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 11:15 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Guillaume <message@bottle.org> - 2022-01-04 21:57 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-04 21:02 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-04 21:38 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2022-01-04 23:01 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-01-04 09:31 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 01:30 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-01-04 14:55 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-04 06:21 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-01-04 16:49 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-01-04 15:56 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-01-04 15:03 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-01-03 22:54 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Mateusz Viste <mateusz@xyz.invalid> - 2022-01-03 09:22 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 03:30 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-01-03 17:22 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 08:48 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Mateusz Viste <mateusz@xyz.invalid> - 2022-01-03 18:42 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-03 17:59 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 11:09 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Mateusz Viste <mateusz@xyz.invalid> - 2022-01-03 20:32 +0100
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2022-01-03 11:58 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-01-03 18:13 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2022-01-03 20:05 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2022-01-01 16:53 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-30 00:29 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-25 12:47 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-26 18:56 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-12-25 17:38 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-25 10:58 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-12-25 19:16 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2021-12-25 11:25 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-12-25 15:01 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-12-25 23:09 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-12-25 20:56 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-12-25 19:30 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-25 15:50 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-26 19:02 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-12-25 11:53 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-26 19:00 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-25 11:22 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Manu Raju <MR@invalid.invalid> - 2021-12-26 19:01 +0000
Re: Can this program be improved? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-12-25 13:27 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-12-25 16:06 -0800
Re: Can this program be improved? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2021-12-29 15:21 +0000
csiph-web