this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2025
282 points (98.0% liked)

Programmer Humor

39852 readers
8 users here now

Post funny things about programming here! (Or just rant about your favourite programming language.)

Rules:

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ferric_carcinization@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I feel like an idiot. Also, in the "Good" example, no underflow occurs. i goes from 0 to -10, and x is assigned to -i every loop.

It might still be possible to optimize away the random number example, if the random function were made a magic language item, but it would not be even remotely close to being worth the effort.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The question the optimizer can't really answer is: will Random.nextInt() ever return 10? If that's a 64 bit integer it could be a LOOOOOONG time before 10 ever shows up.

[–] ferric_carcinization@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 weeks ago

If it were a magic lang item, you could treat the resulting value in a special way. Then, you could create an optimization pass for this situation: if a variable is assigned random in a loop and the loop can only be exited with a certain value, the compiler can coerce the magic rand value to it.

[–] ryannathans@aussie.zone 1 points 3 weeks ago

Ah yes the halting problem