Thread 105947817

>+=1 isn't good enough. lets add an entire operator to my language just for that
mental illness

>>105947817 (OP)
n++ and n+=1 are not equivalent
n+=1 is equivalent to ++n

At least be right if you're going to make a post like this.

some architectures have an instruction that does this doe

>>105947848
>n+=1 is equivalent to ++n
No, n+=1 is not an rvalue. whereas ++n is.
At least be right if you're going to make a post like this.

>>105947877
>>105947848
both wrong. n++ is 2 operation in one. Return n, and then add

for loops are bloat, just use while loops

>>105947817 (OP)
>n = n+1 isn't good enough. let's add an entire operator to my language just for that

>>105947891
Please elaborate how my statement
>++n is [an rvalue]
is wrong. You have my undivided attention.

>>105947817 (OP)
++n and n++ are different constructs

>>105947931
++n is not an rvalue in C++. It's a modifiable lvalue, which is why you can do things like

>++n = 5;

In C, ++n is indeed an rvalue.

n + 1 is always an rvalue in both languages and has no side effects.

So no, ++n and n + 1 are not equivalent, neither in value category nor behavior.

>>105947956
>In C, ++n is indeed an rvalue.
I accept your concession and I am awaiting your apology.

>>105948010
since we never stated the language, you can keep awaiting

>>105947817 (OP)
Dumb shit
just do
>inc RAX

Done

>>105948060
Since we never stated the language, your original statement
>both wrong
was premature, wasn't it.

>>105948208
>Since we never stated the language, your original statement
>>both wrong
wrong

Rust doesn't have this problem.

>>105948010
Literally just entered this thread and read 0 posts. I accept your concession in advance. You may kiss my feet now.

>+=1
mental illness, use n = n + 1

>>105948330
>n = n + 1
Lua user spotted.

>>105948330
this but unironically
rest is bloat

>>105948330
oof using the same variable on both sides of the assignment operator? Very confusing.
Better to do:
new_var = n + 1; n = new_var

>>105947817 (OP)
stay away from computers

>comp sci 101
>devolves into brainlets arguing like its a 300 IQ problem

++ -- are code smells

ACKCHYUALLY C had ++ -- operators because they transleted to cheaper/smaller instructions for increment/decrement than arbitrary addition; and there was no optimizing compiler and they were either too constrained or lazy to detect right-hand-size. it's a bit of a historical artifact that became redundant as soon as compilers started to have at least minimal optimizations

n+=1 is garbage too, i hate these in-place operators
for me it will always be n=n+1

>>105947956
picrel is bjarne dabbing on cniles

>>105947817 (OP)
It was added cuz the PDP-11 had support for it.

>i++
>i+=1
>i.inc()
>i = i + 1
Which one do you prefer the most, /g/?

>>105948330
Are you insane?!?
*pn = NULL;
n = 0;
pn = &n;
n = (*pn)++;

>>105948391
Good morning saar.

>>105948422
>Not even comp sci
>Feeling this insecure about a shitpost thread
The nocoder has outed himself once again.

>>105948431
Snopes verdict: false

brevity is wit

>>105948330
This, but n := n + 1

>>105948470
INCF i, 1

>>105948330
for me its set n (math '$n + 1')

>>105947848
Compiler: *optimizes all of these into the same thing* Heh, nothin' personnel kid

>>105948899
you need to use a new compiler

>>105947872
some compilers can understand when you're adding one

What about n *= m, n /= m, n%= m, etc?

>>105948957
What about them?

>>105947817 (OP)

(setq n(1+ n))

>>105947848
I have never used ++n in my career

Why do useless threads like this are the ones that receives replies?

>>105949063
It's just a typical skub thread. Ni/g/gers love to bicker about pointless shit.

>>105949042
it's better for stl iterators. however, in recent years the main compilers will detect your skin color and fix it in the assembly

>>105949063
It's kind of fun. Entry level, but you still need to know something to participate. Should we just do another brand warz or ai thread instead?

>>105947817 (OP)
>post-increment
>post-

>>105949288
It's the same pointless tribalism, did anons forgot how to normally talk to each other?

>>105948736
>:=
ngmi

its so u can do stuff like auto x = *ptr++. or auto x = a[ind++]. saves an extra line. ++x will increment before so say int a = 5; int b = ++a; they will both be 6. however if int a = 5; int b = a++ b will be 5 and a will be 6. n+=1 is the same as n = n + 1, so it cannot be used in expressions.

>>105950370
>saves an extra line
Peak mathcuck mentality, saving lines over being easy to read.

>>105950424
you mean your machine doesnt have a finite capacity of newline characters?

>>105947817 (OP)
Judging by the fact that literally nobody knows what this shit does without looking up the standard it probably shouldn't exist.

>>105950805
Yeah, for all intensive purposes, that's right.

>>105950932
I hole-hardedly agree, but allow me to play doubles advocate here for a moment. For all intensive purposes I think you are wrong. In an age where false morals are a diamond dozen, true virtues are a blessing in the skies. We often put our false morality on a petal stool like a bunch of pre-Madonnas, but you all seem to be taking something very valuable for granite. So I ask of you to mustard up all the strength you can because it is a doggy dog world out there. Although there is some merit to what you are saying it seems like you have a huge ship on your shoulder. In your argument you seem to throw everything in but the kids Nsync, and even though you are having a feel day with this I am here to bring you back into reality. I have a sick sense when it comes to these types of things. It is almost spooky, because I cannot turn a blonde eye to these glaring flaws in your rhetoric. I have zero taller ants when it comes to people spouting out hate in the name of moral righteousness. You just need to remember what comes around is all around, and when supply and command fails you will be the first to go. Make my words, when you get down to brass stacks it doesn't take rocket appliances to get two birds stoned at once. It's clear who makes the pants in this relationship, and sometimes you just have to swallow your prize and accept the facts. You might have to come to this conclusion through denial and error but I swear on my mother's mating name that when you put the petal to the medal you will pass with flying carpets like it’s a peach of cake.

>>105948330
Hello sar are you crazy? Fuck you bloody bastard bitch. The correct syntax is:

Integer n;
String n2 = "0";
String n3 = "1";
n = Integer.parseInt(n2) + Integer.parseInt(n3);

>>105947817 (OP)
We need new features in C++ such that we can redefine operators.
#define n++ n+=1

>>105948431
But code doesn't smell. I can imagine any smell I want when I look at code.

>>105947872
> some?
Almost all.
Pascal:
succ(n)

>>105947848
++n is 1 = 1 + n
n++ is n = n + 1

>>105947891
cniles have lost their rights to make fun of rustroons

>>105951793
but you smell the jeets.
in the office on the other side of the building.
3 floors away.

>>105948470
i = 1; // optimisation: assumes that i is zero initially. should be true most of the time.

>>105951855
They seem to be getting more rights over rust developer’s own bodies.

>>105951004
I prefer the rotational velocidensity pasta desu

>>105948476
sounds more like something Boomer Junion Wasperson III (freemason 2nd degree) would say

>>105952007
*Junior

>>105951793
>>But code doesn't smell
>bing "code smell"
>ten trillion hits

>>105947817 (OP)
inc n

>I am so much smarter than any compiler
>I write ++i instead of i++ in for loops because it generates 1.2 fewer instructions
literally all of you

>>105952111
*-O3's your path*

>>105952082
If that's how you judge what's real you're going to be a targeted individual soon.

>>105947903
while loops are bloat, just use tail recursion.

>>105952111
The compiler is not omniscient.

>>105950424
i agree that it's pointless and stupid, but if you can't automatically parse ++ and += as the same unconsciously you have bigger problems

>>105952596
I like writing i++ a lot more than i += 1. I just hate reading code where they heavily rely on juggling the return values from ++ shit everywhere just so they can save a line.

>>105948431
Imagine the smell.

>>105952552
it all ends up as jumps anyway

>>105948431
Yes, and it's not code that stinks good

>>105947817 (OP)
Postfix operators give you (non-atomic) exchange semantics. `+=` does not.

>>105948391
I hate this because it sounds exactly like something some smug asshole high on his own farts would put in a company style guide and lecture you about.

>>105952655
not on my watch
https://github.com/xoreaxeaxeax/movfuscator

>>105948187
Based. Now what is it in RISC-V64

>>105952915
imagine not using clang-tidy in 2025

Is it weird that I prefer
nCount++;
SomeFunction(sTest, nCount, nLimit, fCharge);
over
SomeFunction(sTest, ++nCount, nLimit, fCharge);
I feel like the first is more readable

>>105953939
preincrements are confusing. Only post increments should be used.

>>105948996
while (++moron_counter < nigger_var--) { trashbin(++shitposters); }
or
moron_counter += 1;
while (moron_counter < nigger_var) {
shitposters += 1;
trashbin(shitposters);
nigger_var -= 1;
moron_counter += 1;
}

>>105952552
you're going to overflow the stack tranny

>>105948422
>>105948497
>several hours later
>this retardation is still going

>>105947872
Yep, and on x86_64 it's unused. Even if you use i++, it will get replaced with an ADD instruction. INC is no faster than an ADD, but doesn't set RFLAGS

>>105953985
holy fuck stay away from computers, for the love of god

>>105947817 (OP)
As a physicist I just say that literally everything is better than n=n+1. At least ++ and += have no meaning in mathematics.

>>105953985
Why do you expect code that has undefined behavior to not be broken by compiler optimisation? And bringing TCC to the mix isn't even fair because no optimisation.

What does this function return?
int foo (void) {
int n = 0;
return ++n + n++;
}
You should be able to solve this.

>>105947848
>the utter state of the replies
cniles btfo

>>105955166
Is it 1?
I remember I had this issue a while ago where I returned n++, but it didn't return the incremented value.

>>105949042
You use it for iterators, which are not required to support it++ as operation.

>>105954276
> n = n + 1
> n - n = 1
>0 = 1
>the universe implodes

>>105947817 (OP)
I use it only for for-loop

>>105953985
>look at me, I don't know C
https://www.gnu.org/software/c-intro-and-ref/manual/html_node/Signed-Overflow.html

>>105955259
it's undefined behavior. any compiler is free to do whatever it wants with that expression.
In fact, gcc and clang will warn you if you try to do that.

>>105952587
all compilers will emit the same instructions for i++ and ++i unless you explicitly use the rvalue from i++. Notable exceptions being the first C (ansi C) compiler which didn't have optimizations and would emit fewer insn for ++i.
https://godbolt.org/z/WWrxjaTnq

>>105954070
>tail recursion
>will overflow the stack
chatgpt levels of confidently wrong

>>105955166
>>105955419
it will always return 2

if ++n evaluates first it, returns 1 and n is now 1
then n++ evaluates second, returning 1 and n is 2
1 + 1 = 2

if n++ evaluates first, it returns 0 and n is now 1
then ++n evaluates, returning 2 and n is now 2
0 + 2 = 2

>>105955527
And yet
https://godbolt.org/z/1vMEEzqzW

>>105955490
I sure am glad to live in a world where tail call optimization is consistently implemented by all languages

>>105955540
damn

>>105949063
As opposed to what threads? Your shitty question that could be answered by an LLM and belongs in /sqt/? The trillionth brand war thread? Maybe the excuse of a thread to post weebshit?

>>105947817 (OP)
are you american by any chance

>>105954070
Are you genuinely retarded, or just pretending to be stupid for the lulz?