Re: Function v. Writing operations

[Libman]

I understand all the fallacies of this question, but...

Well, I was a little curious to see what would happen if I made some deductions 
about the purpose of the question did try to benchmark the following:


j = 0
benchmark "function":
  for i in countup(1, x):
inc j


vs


j = 0
benchmark "operator":
  for i in 1..x:
j = j + 1


The following code is only for without compiler optimization and on platforms 
that support [rdtsc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_Stamp_Counter):

[https://gist.github.com/lbmn/d424dd0c8c85fa195743356fc133235a](https://gist.github.com/lbmn/d424dd0c8c85fa195743356fc133235a)

So now there's a new way to flip a coin! 

Re: Function v. Writing operations

[Araq]

@jibal No, I agree with planhths, that was likely our forum troll and so I 
banned him.

Re: Function v. Writing operations

[jibal]

@planhths Hanlon's Razor

Re: Function v. Writing operations

[Krux02]

Well the performance bottleneck is obviously the echo statement.

Re: Function v. Writing operations

[planhths]

Omg and you wanted to write a book? Nice trolling bro.

Re: Function v. Writing operations

[stisa]

Looking at the docs [here](https://nim-lang.org/docs/system.html#14) , `..` is 
an alias for `countup`.

btw, this 


for i in ..10: echo i


works.

Re: Function v. Writing operations

[moigagoo]

Both samples are incorrect, they both don't compile.

Here are the correct samples:


for i in countup(1, 10):
  echo i



for i in 1..10:
  echo i


As to performance, running both programs 100 times took about 800 milliseconds. 
They are virtually the same, to no surprise.

Re: Function v. Writing operations

[bluenote]

That doesn't really make sense. The for loop itself increments the variable. 
You can't increment it because it is immutable. And you need a colon and a 
lower bound.

Re: Function v. Writing operations

[dom96]

Benchmark it and you'll find out.