commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [MATH] Interest in large patches for small cleanup / performance changes?
Date Sat, 02 Nov 2013 15:03:10 GMT
On Sat, 2 Nov 2013 14:52:34 +0000, Sean Owen wrote:
> In Math, is there any appetite for large patches containing many
> instances of particular micro-optimizations? Examples:
>
> - Replace:
>     a[i][j] = a[i][j] + foo;
>   with:
>     a[i][j] += foo;
>   … which is faster/leaner in the byte code by a little bit. It might
> make a difference in many nested, tight loops.
> - Inefficient toArray() calls with 0-length arg
> - Using Map.entrySet() instead of keySet() + get()s
> - Unnecessarily non-static private methods/classes
> - StringBuffer vs StringBuilder
> - etc.
>
> There are some non-functional but still possibly useful, simplifying
> changes too:
>
> - Add @Deprecated annotations
> - Fix broken method refs in javadoc
> - Removing unnecessary boxing/unboxing
> - Using foreach where possible
> - etc.
>
> I could go on for a while. Most of what I might otherwise suggest is
> style-level stuff like fixing C-style array declarations which is
> unlikely to be useful enough to justify. Or, it would involve 
> changing
> signatures somewhere, which is probably not cool.
>
> If there’s interest in these sorts of things I can generate one or
> more patches easily. The downside is the disruption of large patches,
> perhaps breaking existing patches.

I think that is good to have a uniform style.
But why would a big patch be unavoidable? Reviewing a few changes is 
easier.

Thanks for your help with this,
Gilles


[1] If just for better readability. But not the majority shares this 
view
     around here.



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message