|There's more than one way to do things|
Re^3: counting backwardby BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Mar 03, 2013 at 18:40 UTC||Need Help??|
You caught that I use 1; as the body of the loop to avoid confusing things with the efficiency of the system null device driver (not particularly efficient on Win32). But you missed the point I was trying to make; namely that you cannot use the C-style for as a modifier; which means you must always pay the penalty of creating a new scope for each iteration of the loop.
Add that to the benchmark to see that cost:
Of course, some people eschew the use of modifier forms; but then they are probably the same people that favor their own one-off developer time over the every-user, every-time runtime costs.
As for much of my work I am both user and developer, I don't have that luxury.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.