I'd like to know which one of the following two forms of lazy instantiation generates faster assembly code. Here's the code:
1st:
if (!_separatorTopBorderColor) _separatorTopBorderColor = UIColorFromHex(0x393A3B);
return _separatorTopBorderColor;
2nd:
_separatorTopBorderColor = _separatorTopBorderColor ?: UIColorFromHex(0x393A3B);
return _separatorTopBorderColor;
It might be an issue 10 years ago, but nowadays, compilers literally sees any difference with ternary operators and if-else statements. My advise is that you should concentrate on keeping your code more readable, maintainable, and efficient. Don't care about resource or memory usage in this case.
This is really a question of ternary operators vs regular if-statements. Neither will be faster, so it's really a matter of aesthetics/preference.
No. Simple as that. And why should it.
Well, choose whichever is more readable.
Now, from a compiler optimization perspective, most optimizing compilers contain an optimizer pass called "if-conversion" or something like that, which is a pass which can convert a SIMPLE branch into a conditional move instruction. In your case you have a function call right there in one of the branches, so this doesn't matter. Secondly, on a superscalar OoO processor with decent branch prediction, conditional moves are in most cases a pessimization compared to a simple branch, so in fact compilers targeting such CPU's will most likely not do the if-conversion.
Related
I'm working on a streaming rules engine, and some of my customers have a few hundred rules they'd like to evaluate on every event that arrives at the system. The rules are pure (i.e. non-side-effecting) Boolean expressions, and they can be nested arbitrarily deeply.
Customers are creating, updating and deleting rules at runtime, and I need to detect and adapt to the population of rules dynamically. At the moment, the expression evaluation uses an interpreter over the internal AST, and I haven't started thinking about codegen yet.
As always, some of the predicates in the tree are MUCH cheaper to evaluate than others, and I've been looking for an algorithm or data structure that makes it easier to find the predicates that are cheap, and that are validly interpretable as controlling the entire expression. My mental headline for this pattern is "ANDs all the way to the root", i.e. any predicate for which all ancestors are ANDs can be interpreted as controlling.
Despite several days of literature search, reading about ROBDDs, CNF, DNF, etc., I haven't been able to close the loop from what might be common practice in the industry to my particular use case. One thing I've found that seems related is Analysis and optimization for boolean expression indexing
but it's not clear how I could apply it without implementing the BE-Tree data structure myself, as there doesn't seem to be an open source implementation.
I keep half-jokingly mentioning to my team that we're going to need a SAT solver one of these days. 😅 I guess it would probably suffice to write a recursive algorithm that traverses the tree and keeps track of whether every ancestor is an AND or an OR, but I keep getting the "surely this is a solved problem" feeling. :)
Edit: After talking to a couple of friends, I think I may have a sketch of a solution!
Transform the expressions into Conjunctive Normal Form, in which, by definition, every node is in a valid short-circuit position.
Use the Tseitin algorithm to try to avoid exponential blowups in expression size as a result of the CNF transform
For each AND in the tree, sort it in ascending order of cost (i.e. cheapest to the left)
???
Profit!^Weval as usual :)
You should seriously consider compiling the rules (and the predicates). An interpreter is 10-50x slower than machine code for the same thing. This is a good idea if the rule set doesn't change very often. Its even a good idea if the rules can change dynamically because in practice they still don't change very fast, although now your rule compiler has be online. Eh, just makes for a bigger application program and memory isn't much of an issue anymore.
A Boolean expression evaluation using individual machine instructions is even better. Any complex boolean equation can be compiled in branchless sequences of individual machine instructions over the leaf values. No branches, no cache misses; stuff runs pretty damn fast. Now, if you have expensive predicates, you probably want to compile code with branches to skip subtrees that don't affect the result of the expression, if they contain expensive predicates.
Within reason, you can generate any equivalent form (I'd run screaming into the night over the idea of using CNF because it always blows up on you). What you really want is the shortest boolean equation (deepest expression tree) equivalent to what the clients provided because that will take the fewest machine instructions to execute. This may sound crazy, but you might consider exhaustive search code generation, e.g., literally try every combination that has a chance of working, especially if the number of operators in the equation is relatively small. The VLSI world has been working hard on doing various optimizations when synthesizing boolean equations into gates. You should look into the the Espresso hueristic boolean logic optimizer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espresso_heuristic_logic_minimizer)
One thing that might drive you expression evaluation is literally the cost of the predicates. if I have formula A and B, and I know that A is expensive to evaluate and usually returns true, then clearly I want to evaluate B and A instead.
You should consider common sub expression evaluation, so that any common subterm is only computed once. This is especially important when one has expensive predicates; you never want to evaluate the same expensive predicate twice.
I implemented these tricks in a PLC emulator (these are basically machines that evaluate buckets [like hundreds of thousands] of boolean equations telling factory actuators when to move) using x86 machine instructions for AND/OR/NOT for Rockwell Automation some 20 years ago. It outran Rockwell's "premier" PLC which had custom hardware but was essentially an interpreter.
You might also consider incremental evaluation of the equations. The basic idea is not to re-evaluate all the equations over and over, but rather to re-evaluate only those equations whose input changed. Details are too long to include here, but a patent I did back then explains how to do it. See https://patents.google.com/patent/US5623401A/en?inventor=Ira+D+Baxter&oq=Ira+D+Baxter
I am in the second year of my bachelor study in information technology. Last year in one of my courses they taught me to write clean code so other programmers have an easier time working with your code. I learned a lot about writing clean code from a video ("clean code") on pluralsight (paid website for learning which my school uses). There was an example in there about assigning if conditions to boolean variables and using them to enhance readability. In my course today my teacher told me it's very bad code because it decreases performance (in bigger programs) due to increased tests being executed. I was wondering now whether I should continue using boolean variables for readability or not use them for performance. I will illustrate in an example (I am using python code for this example):
example boolean variable
Let's say we need to check whether somebody is legal to drink alcohol we get the persons age and we know the legal drinking age is 21.
is_old_enough = persons_age >= legal_drinking_age
if is_old_enough:
do something
My teacher told me today that this would be very bad for performance since 2 tests are performed first persons_age >= legal_drinking_age is tested and secondly in the if another test occurs whether the person is_old_enough.
My teacher told me that I should just put the condition in the if, but in the video they said that code should be read like natural language to make it clear for other programmers. I was wondering now which would be the better coding practice.
example condition in if:
if persons_age >= legal_drinking_age:
do something
In this example only 1 test is tested whether persons_age >= legal_drinking_age. According to my teacher this is better code.
Thank you in advance!
yours faithfully
Jonas
I was wondering now which would be the better coding practice.
The real safe answer is : Depends..
I hate to use this answer, but you won't be asking unless you have faithful doubt. (:
IMHO:
If the code will be used for long-term use, where maintainability is important, then a clearly readable code is preferred.
If the program speed performance crucial, then any code operation that use less resource (smaller dataSize/dataType /less loop needed to achieve the same thing/ optimized task sequencing/maximize cpu task per clock cycle/ reduced data re-loading cycle) is better. (example keyword : space-for-time code)
If the program minimizing memory usage is crucial, then any code operation that use less storage and memory resource to complete its operation (which may take more cpu cycle/loop for the same task) is better. (example: small devices that have limited data storage/RAM)
If you are in a race, then you may what to code as short as possible, (even if it may take a slightly longer cpu time later). example : Hackathon
If you are programming to teach a team of student/friend something.. Then readable code + a lot of comment is definitely preferred .
If it is me.. I'll stick to anything closest to assembly language as possible (as much control on the bit manipulation) for backend development. and anything closest to mathematica-like code (less code, max output, don't really care how much cpu/memory resource is needed) for frontend development. ( :
So.. If it is you.. you may have your own requirement/preference.. from the user/outsiders/customers point of view.. it is just a working/notWorking program. YOur definition of good program may defer from others.. but this shouldn't stop us to be flexible in the coding style/method.
Happy exploring. Hope it helps.. in any way possible.
Performance
Performance is one of the least interesting concerns for this question, and I say this as one working in very performance-critical areas like image processing and raytracing who believes in effective micro-optimizations (but my ideas of effective micro-optimization would be things like improving memory access patterns and memory layouts for cache efficiency, not eliminating temporary variables out of fear that your compiler or interpreter might allocate additional registers and/or utilize additional instructions).
The reason it's not so interesting is, because, as pointed out in the comments, any decent optimizing compiler is going to treat those two you wrote as equivalent by the time it finishes optimizing the intermediate representation and generates the final results of the instruction selection/register allocation to produce the final output (machine code). And if you aren't using a decent optimizing compiler, then this sort of microscopic efficiency is probably the last thing you should be worrying about either way.
Variable Scopes
With performance aside, the only concern I'd have with this convention, and I think it's generally a good one to apply liberally, is for languages that don't have a concept of a named constant to distinguish it from a variable.
In those cases, the more variables you introduce to a meaty function, the more intellectual overhead it can have as the number of variables with a relatively wide scope increases, and that can translate to practical burdens in maintenance and debugging in extreme cases. If you imagine a case like this:
some_variable = ...
...
some_other_variable = ...
...
yet_another_variable = ...
(300 lines more code to the function)
... in some function, and you're trying to debug it, then those variables combined with the monstrous size of the function starts to multiply the difficulty of trying to figure out what went wrong. That's a practical concern I've encountered when debugging codebases spanning millions of lines of code written by all sorts of people (including those no longer on the team) where it's not so fun to look at the locals watch window in a debugger and see two pages worth of variables in some monstrous function that appears to be doing something incorrectly (or in one of the functions it calls).
But that's only an issue when it's combined with questionable programming practices like writing functions that span hundreds or thousands of lines of code. In those cases it will often improve everything just focusing on making reasonable-sized functions that perform one clear logical operation and don't have more than one side effect (or none ideally if the function can be programmed as a pure function). If you design your functions reasonably then I wouldn't worry about this at all and favor whatever is readable and easiest to comprehend at a glance and maybe even what is most writable and "pliable" (to make changes to the function easier if you anticipate a future need).
A Pragmatic View on Variable Scopes
So I think a lot of programming concepts can be understood to some degree by just understanding the need to narrow variable scopes. People say avoid global variables like the plague. We can go into issues with how that shared state can interfere with multithreading and how it makes programs difficult to change and debug, but you can understand a lot of the problems just through the desire to narrow variable scopes. If you have a codebase which spans a hundred thousand lines of code, then a global variable is going to have the scope of a hundred thousands of lines of code for both access and modification, and crudely speaking a hundred thousand ways to go wrong.
At the same time that pragmatic sort of view will find it pointless to make a one-shot program which only spans 100 lines of code with no future need for extension avoid global variables like the plague, since a global here is only going to have 100 lines worth of scope, so to speak. Meanwhile even someone who avoids those like the plague in all contexts might still write a class with member variables (including some superfluous ones for "convenience") whose implementation spans 8,000 lines of code, at which point those variables have a much wider scope than even the global variable in the former example, and this realization could drive someone to design smaller classes and/or reduce the number of superfluous member variables to include as part of the state management for the class (which can also translate to simplified multithreading and all the similar types of benefits of avoiding global variables in some non-trivial codebase).
And finally it'll tend to tempt you to write smaller functions as well, since a variable towards the top of some function spanning 500 lines of code is going to also have a fairly wide scope. So anyway, my only concern when you do this is to not let the scope of those temporary, local variables get too wide. And if they do, then the general answer is not necessarily to avoid those variables but to narrow their scope.
I've recently picked up Michael Abrash's The Zen of Assembly Language (from 1990) and was reading a section on how instruction prefetching is not always advantageous such as the case when branching occurs (a jump). This is because all of the instructions that were prefetched are no longer the ones to be executed and so more instructions must be fetched.
This reminded me of an optimization from another old book, Tricks of the Game Programming Gurus by Andre LaMothe in which he suggests that when setting up your conditional statements, you put the most frequently (or expected) path first.
For example:
if (booleanThatIsMostLikelyToBeTrue)
{
// ...expected code
// also the code that would've been prefetched
}
else
{
// ...exceptional or less likely code
}
My questions are:
1) Was LaMothe's optimization suggested with this in mind? (I no longer have the book)
2) Is this type of optimization still a worthwhile programming habit on modern machine? (maybe prefetching is handled differently than it used to be?)
You want to set up your code to branch as little as possible, and branch backwards when it does. A more reliable way to do that IF is to always do the common thing then test for the exception:
Do A;
if( test ) Do B;
Of course, this has to be arranged so that anything A does is reversed by B if B occurs.
The point of Zen programming is to try to eliminate the If statements altogether. So for example, instead of looping 10 times (which requires an exit condition test), you just write the same statement 10 times, voila!, no if statement. Another example is if you are looping a list, you use a sentinel to exit the loop, instead of testing an index value.
If you are working in C, it can be difficult to gimick the compiler into doing what you want. Putting something first or second in an IF statement will have no effect on compiled result. Note that it is critical to use the right compiler options. For example, using the /O2 (optimize for speed) in Visual C++ makes a HUGE difference in the compiled efficiency.
These kinds of optimizations can often be useful. However, it's typically something that you do after you've written the program, profiled it, and determined that the program would benefit from doing these micro-optimizations.
Also, many modern compilers have profile-guided optimization, which can relieve you of having to contort your code for performance purposes.
I have this condition:
If (cmbStatusSearch.SelectedValue <> "-1") Then
How can I make it better in performance? I read String.CompareOrdinal is faster in comparing strings. So should I use:
If (String.CompareOrdinal(cmbStatusSearch.SelectedValue,"-1" <>0) Then
Or is there any other way to make if faster in performance?
I think you're being overly concerned about the wrong type of performance issues and prematurely optimizing a trivial piece of code.
The first example is much more readable than the second. If it serves your purpose then move on and be content with it. Your performance bottleneck will not be in that statement. If you feel some operation in your program is slow then use a profiler, such as the ANTS Performance Profiler (or similar), to discover where the bottleneck is. Until then, guessing about performance issues is futile.
To put this into perspective, consider that no one would use LINQ if they were so concerned over performance to the level presented in your question. Instead, they would stick to traditional code and for loops, which are known to be faster. However, for the sake of readability and expressiveness, LINQ is commonly used and acceptable.
Although String.CompareOrdinal might be more efficient, I would recommend using it when you need to benefit from its intended purpose, which is to perform a case-sensitive comparison using ordinal sort rules. Otherwise, for your posted example, a direct comparison is fine and more readable.
Lets think about this:
Any string equality check can be implemented viastring.CompareOrdinal.
A string comparison check cannot be implemented via an equality check.
So if CompareOrdinal was faster, why wouldn't they just implement Equals in terms of it? In fact it's slower (exact numbers depend on framework), but this is not surprising since it does strictly more work.
This question concerns optimization. Suppose I need the array length of an array A at two places in my code. Should I use the function a.length() in the two places, or is it faster to assign a local variable the value of a.length() and use it at the two places.
By "faster" I mean in terms of running time. Moreover, i am talking asymptotically.
The asymptotic complexity of calling the function twice is the same - any constant number of calls to the same (pure) function on the same arguments has the same asymptotic complexity as a single call to that function, since you can just roll the constant number of calls into the big-O's hidden constant.
As for what will be faster, there's no guarantee which one will be faster. It depends on the language and compiler. I'd suggest just writing it both ways and timing the result to see if there's an appreciable difference. That said, if you are writing something that is so performance-critical that you can't afford to call .length() twice, you may need to reconsider your approach in general to see if there's a better global solution to the problem. Microoptimizations are rarely worth the effort unless you have a compelling reason to believe that your program is markedly slower in the unoptimized version.
If you have to ask the question, you're not at a point where it matters yet. If you were, you'd already have code that you've profiled, and you could just try it and see. This kind of thing depends heavily on your language and compiler, and the only results that matter are the ones you see.
Don't worry about micro-optimizations til you find you need to shave cycles, and even then the algorithm is the first thing to check.
What language? In many languages, such calls are optimized away (either at compile time or by a JIT compiler) into direct access to the length field of the array object.