Code efficiency test #1 (find the flaw).

[Botre 27]

No black pips please.

(I have seen this kind of inefficiency a lot)

 

[Novak 35]

why are you returning a new integer again?

[Botre 27]

why are you returning a new integer again?

 

Nein.

[Novak 35]

Nein.

i dont understand tho...

 

object : new Integer(1337) would return the same values, no?

so whether is null or not its still returning 1337

[Botre 27]

i dont understand tho...

 

object : new Integer(1337) would return the same values, no?

so whether is null or not its still returning 1337

 

Unless you set "object" to any of the 4 billion other int values it can hold, or to any other object.

[Novak 35]

Unless you set "object" to any of the 4 billion other int values it can hold, or to any other object.

 

but you didn't

I'm out of ideas now, I'm going to work

[Explicit 213]

"object" can never be null (unless set within a different instance method) so the ternary in the getter is pointless (in this case).

 

How is this inefficient?

[Botre 27]

"object" can never be null (unless set within a different instance method) so the ternary in the getter is pointless (in this case).

 

How is this inefficient?

 

*gives medal*

 

redundant (double) check = redundant processing = inefficient.

[Explicit 213]

*gives medal*

 

redundant (double) check = redundant processing = inefficient.

But it's not, considering anyone working with your code could add an instance method #fuckWithBotre and set "object" to null.

[Botre 27]

But it's not, considering anyone working with your code could add an instance method #fuckWithBotre and set "object" to null.