Why are you still incrementing with ++ when += is literally 2x faster?

Why are you still incrementing with ++ when += is literally 2x faster?

Lowest quality b8 in a while
I applaud you user

> not doing x = x + 1;
smdhtbqhfam

it take long time why use?

>using i+=2 when i*=2 is O(ln(n))

time for ((x=0;x/dev/null; done

real 0m0.000s
user 0m0.000s
sys 0m0.000s
It's time to upgrade your potato.

I killed semon demon in 0.001s how long does it take you?

X++ /= X +=2
You dumbfuck

>++
>+= 2
why not += 10
it should be 10 times faster than ++

first day here?

Because Im incrementing with prefix ++ instead of postfix one like a sane person.

because it's cooler
in fact, it's so cool, c++ was named after it

why not just get rid of the loop at all, it would be O(1)

Why even write code? O(0)

whoa..

Those loops aren't equivalent, though.

This is pretty slick bait. No wonder the second loop takes half the time, it's counting half the loops.

They're the same becaue i += 2 is the same as i++ and i += 1 would be the same in term of speed. Some have said i++ is only adding once but it's not it's adding twice, i+ adds once and that is the same ad i += 1

>bash
Who cares, fuck off

...

I think it faster because i++ must define i first where i+=2 puts it straight to i without defining what i is so it work half as much and twice as fast

>Some have said i++ is only adding once but it's not it's adding twice, i+ adds once and that is the same ad i += 1
In what language? Bash? I'm pretty sure I've used i++ in bash with it incrementing correctly, by one (1).

++C would be much better language.

So it would load libraries before you add them? Isn't that just Java?