Code efficiency test #1 (find the flaw).

[Eliot 193]

This is the most useless thing I've ever read.

[Botre 27]

This is the most useless thing I've ever read.

 

Sheriff of da noobs

[Nuclear Nezz 2055]

Why check for null in setter?

What if I want to set the object to null?

 

I did enjoy this thread a bit, though.

 

and if you enjoyed thinking of an inefficiency that you see people do, I would rather enjoy seeing something more script related (inefficiencies of onLoop and how to prevent them, caching objects that don't change but you reset every loop anyway). That way new scripters can see them and understand them.

 

>hint

you could start a "Spot the inefficiency!" series of threads ;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3

 

EDIT:

could even turn it into a competition

[Botre 27]

Why check for null in setter?

What if I want to set the object to null?

 

I did enjoy this thread a bit, though.

 

and if you enjoyed thinking of an inefficiency that you see people do, I would rather enjoy seeing something more script related (inefficiencies of onLoop and how to prevent them, caching objects that don't change but you reset every loop anyway). That way new scripters can see them and understand them.

 

>hint

you could start a "Spot the inefficiency!" series of threads ;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3;3

 

EDIT:

could even turn it into a competition

 

The point was that you shouldn't check twice.

But agreed that not being able to set an object to null is a flaw in itself as its one of the only ways to optimize memory.

I might start another script consulting thread though.

Who knows