So what is the reason for doing it that way?
Programmer Humor
Welcome to Programmer Humor!
This is a place where you can post jokes, memes, humor, etc. related to programming!
For sharing awful code theres also Programming Horror.
Rules
- Keep content in english
- No advertisements
- Posts must be related to programming or programmer topics
I think this is just a picky optimization.
The first one runs the constructor to instantiate a new string, then gets its class (which is presumably a static property anyway). The second doesn’t have to run any constructor and just grabs the static class name from the type.
Maybe there’s more implementation nuance here but it seems like an opinionated rule that has zero effect on performance unless that code is being called thousands of times every second. And even then the compiler probably optimizes them to the same code anyway.
Maybe there’s more implementation nuance here but it seems like an opinionated rule that has zero effect on performance unless that code is being called thousands of times every second
It's good practice to get in the habit of coding to only do the things you want/need to do rather than hoping the compiler does it for you.
This particular constructor call may be light, but there may be constructors that have a lot of overhead. Or you might be running alongside 1000 other processes who said the same thing and you start to see performance degradation.
These things add up if you're doing them all over a 1 million line codebase, by which point it's incredibly painful to claw back performance if you need it.
This seems like one of those cases where you don't want to be waiting until benchmarking.
It makes the code simpler anyway.
It's not picky, needlessly creating objects makes the garbage collector run a lot more. Especially if it's invoked frequently like Minecraft recreating the object for every block on the screen for every frame to render. The garbage collector is largely responsible for lag of up to a second occurring at random times.
Can't wait for all the other horror stories getting posted here :D
I just like knowing which episode this is from and the implication that removing the code analyzer will cause an explosion.
Your transcription doesn't have the code in it
flake8-simplify has a bunch of rules like that for Python, most of which may be automatically fixed if you're using something like ruff, so you never have to spend time actually fixing it.