On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:52:34 +0000, Sean Owen wrote:
In Math, is there any appetite for large patches containing many
instances of particular micro-optimizations? Examples:
- Replace:
a[i][j] = a[i][j] + foo;
with:
a[i][j] += foo;
… which is faster/leaner in the byte code by a little bit. It might
make a difference in many nested, tight loops.
- Inefficient toArray() calls with 0-length arg
- Using Map.entrySet() instead of keySet() + get()s
- Unnecessarily non-static private methods/classes
- StringBuffer vs StringBuilder
- etc.
There are some non-functional but still possibly useful, simplifying
changes too:
- Add @Deprecated annotations
- Fix broken method refs in javadoc
- Removing unnecessary boxing/unboxing
- Using foreach where possible
- etc.
I could go on for a while. Most of what I might otherwise suggest is
style-level stuff like fixing C-style array declarations which is
unlikely to be useful enough to justify. Or, it would involve
changing
signatures somewhere, which is probably not cool.
If there’s interest in these sorts of things I can generate one or
more patches easily. The downside is the disruption of large patches,
perhaps breaking existing patches.
I think that is good to have a uniform style.
But why would a big patch be unavoidable? Reviewing a few changes is
easier.
Thanks for your help with this,
Gilles
[1] If just for better readability. But not the majority shares this
view
around here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
