Develop Reference

Are there any performance benefits in C# discards?

Consider this code:
var (mult, sum) = MultSum(a, b);
and
var (_, sum) = MultSum(a, b);
Question 1.
If I use discard instead of a variable name, does it have performance benefit? eg. by reducing assignment operations.
Question 2.
Is there any way to write the MultSum smart enough so it doesn't calculate the discards!?

If I use discard instead of a variable name, does it have performance benefit? eg. by reducing assignment operations.
In your particular case it is unlikely that there would be a benefit in performance. The tuple that is returned is assigned to temporary storage; you've just not given a name to one part of that storage.
Now, if you had an expression that had discards that were entire values, not fragments of a tuple, then the compiler and the jitter can be smart about not allocating any storage on the short-term pool for the result, or re-using existing storage that was already allocated. Note that by "short-term pool" I effectively mean "activation record on the stack" or "registers". This could, in theory, lead to better register allocation or smaller frames (and therefore better locality of reference) and that in turn could save you entire nanoseconds.
Nano-optimizations are generally not worth it; there is almost always a better bang-for-buck performance problem to attack. But if you think it might be relevant for your scenario, measure it and see. That is the only way to know if there is a relevant performance difference. Get out a nano-scale stopwatch, run the code both ways, and see which one is faster.
The benefit you should be attempting to accrue by using discards is the "make my program easier to understand" benefit. Programmers are expensive; optimize for making your code easy for future programmers to read, understand and modify.
Is there any way to write the MultSum smart enough so it doesn't calculate the discards!?
Yes. Write your program in Haskell. Haskell will avoid performing calculations whose results are never used. C# is not such a language.

A "Function lookup table" in place of switches

I came across some code recently that replaces the use of switches by hard-coding a
Dictionary<string (or whatever we would've been switching on), Func<...>>
and where ever the switch would've been, it instead does dict["value"].Invoke(...).
The code feels wrong in some way, but at the same time, the methods do look a bit cleaner, especially when there's many possible cases. I can't give any rationale as to why this is good or bad design so I was hoping someone could give some reasons to support/condemn this kind of code. Is there a gain in performance? Loss of clarity?
Example:
public class A {
...
public int SomeMethod(string arg){
...
switch(arg) {
case "a": do stuff; break;
case "b": do other stuff; break;
etc.
}
...
}
...
}
becomes
public class A {
Dictionary<string, Func<int>> funcs = new Dictionary<string, Func<int>> {
{ "a", () => 0; },
{ "b", () => DoOtherStuff(); }
... etc.
};
public int SomeMethod(string arg){
...
funcs[arg].Invoke();
...
}
...
}

Advantages:
You can change the behaviour at runtime of the "switch" at runtime
it doesn't clutter the methods using it
you can have non-literal cases (ie. case a + b == 3) with much less hassle
Disadvantages:
All of your methods must have the same signature.
You have a change of scope, you can't use variables defined in the scope of the method unless you capture them in the lambda, you'll have to take care of redefining all lambdas should you add a variable at some point
you'll have to deal with non-existant indexes specifically (similar to default in a switch)
the stacktrace will be more complicated if an unhandled exception should bubble up, resulting in a harder to debug application
Should you use it? It really depends. You'll have to define the dictionary at some place, so the code will be cluttered by it somewhere. You'll have to decide for yourself. If you need to switch behaviour at runtime, the dictionary solution really sticks out, especially, if the methods you use don't have sideeffects (ie. don't need access to scoped variables).

For several reasons:
Because doing it this way allows you to select what each case branch will do at runtime. Otherwise, you have to compile it in.
What's more, you can also change the number of branches at runtime.
The code looks much cleaner especially with a large number of branches, as you mention.
Why does this solution feel wrong to you? If the dictionary is populated at compile time, then you certainly don't lose any safety (the delegates that go in certainly have to compile without error). You do lose a little performance, but:
In most cases the performance loss is a non-issue
The flexibility you gain is enormous

Jon has a couple good answers. Here are some more:
Whenever you need a new case in a switch, you have to code it in to that switch statement. That requires opening up that class (which previously worked just fine), adding the new code, and re-compiling and re-testing that class and any class that used it. This violates a SOLID development rule, the Open-Closed Principle (classes should be closed to modification, but open to extension). By contrast, a Dictionary of delegates allows delegates to be added, removed, and swapped out at will, without changing the code doing the selecting.
Using a Dictionary of delegates allows the code to be performed in a condition to be located anywhere, and thus given to the Dictionary from anywhere. Given this freedom, it's easy to turn the design into a Strategy pattern where each delegate is provided by a unique class that performs the logic for that case. This supports encapsulation of code and the Single Responsibility Principle (a class should do one thing, and should be the only class responsible for that thing).

If there are more number of possible cases then it is good idea to replace Switch Statement with the strategy pattern, See this.
Applying Strategy Pattern Instead of Using Switch Statements

No one has said anything yet about what I believe to be the single biggest drawback of this approach.
It's less maintainable.
I say this for two reasons.
It's syntactically more complex.
It requires more reasoning to understand.
Most programmers know how a switch statement works. Many programmers have never seen a Dictionary of functions.
While this might seem like an interesting and novel alternative to the switch statement and may very well be the only way to solve some problems, it is considerably more complex. If you don't need the added flexibility you shouldn't use it.

Convert your A class to a partial class, and create a second partial class in another file with just the delegate dictionary in it.
Now you can change the number of branches, and add logic to your switch statement without touching the source for the rest of your class.

(Regardless of language) Performance-wise, where such code exists in a critical section, you are almost certainly better off with a function look-up table.
The reason is that you eliminate multiple runtime conditionals (the longer your switch, the more comparisons there will be) in favour of simple array indexing and function call.
The only performance downside is you've introduced the cost of a function call. This will typically be preferable to said conditionals. Profile the difference; YMMV.

Faster assignment or check for bool values

The question is simple, which is faster between CalledOften1 and CalledOften2
class MyTest
{
public bool test = false;
void CalledOften1()
{
if (!test) test = true;
DoSomething();
}
void CalledOften2()
{
test = true;
DoSomething();
}
}
Is the compiler optimized (if possible) to avoid future assignments of test if it's already true?
UPDATE:
This question is just an information, I will not use the if (bla) style if I can write test=true, I prefer code readability.

I prefer to measure for these sorts of questions rather than guess:
CalledOften1: 52 million operations per second
CalledOften2: 53 million operations per second
So they are nearly the same. If anything, the simpler method is also the faster.

This is a perfect example of premature optimization.
If you want to set test to true every time, just set it. Don't complicate your code for a theorized speedup.
That being said, the reduced instruction set of the second example, along with being simpler and more maintainable, is most likely faster due to avoiding the branching and reducing the number of instructions. A single assignment of a bool is a very fast operation. If you really need to know how much faster it may be, I would profile this yourself. However, I suspect that either would be fast enough in any case.

I would expect the second version to be slightly faster, given that it doesn't involve any branching. It also expresses the intention of "make sure the variable is true, whatever it was before" more clearly IMO. However:
I doubt that it's significant
Any number of actual changes in context could make the results change (including your code, or the version of the framework you're running against)
Write the clearest code first, and optimize later
Benchmark this against your real code, under realistic conditions before you decide to change anything

Compiler optimizes only something that is definite at compile time. This is changed at runtime so answer is no. Compiler could optimize if you were checking against constant. CalledOften1 is faster, but the magnitude is so small that you would not notice. This is kind of microptimisation you should avoid.

If I had to guess, I would say that CalledOften2 is more optimized, as there is no logic test operation done.
In the end, if you are looking at this level of optimization, then your application will probably go as fast as it can. Any performance gain you get out of this type of optimization will likely never be noticed by anyone.
My two cents,
Brian

Premature optimization is the root of all evil. Use the one that expresses your intent most clearly.
(I'm guessing a read+branch is going to be more expensive than just a write, but don't really know the CLR. The important thing is that computers are increasing in speed exponentially, and programmers aren't. Algorithmic improvements in performance bottlenecks are worth exploring, barely measurable constant-time improvements for their own sake aren't.)

"Getters should not include large amounts of logic." True or false?

I tend to assume that getters are little more than an access control wrapper around an otherwise fairly lightweight set of instructions to return a value (or set of values).
As a result, when I find myself writing longer and more CPU-hungry setters, I feel Perhaps this is not the smartest move. In calling a getter in my own code (in particular let's refer to C# where there is a syntactical difference between method vs. getter calls), then I make an implicit assumption that these are lightweight -- when in fact that may well not be the case.
What's the general consensus on this? Use of other people's libraries aside, do you write heavy getters? Or do you tend to treat heavier getters as "full methods"?
PS. Due to language differences, I expect there'll be quite a number of different thoughts on this...

Property getters are intended to retrieve a value. So when developers call them, there is an expectation that the call will return (almost) immediately with a value. If that expectation cannot be met, it is better to use a method instead of a property.

From MSDN:
Property Usage Guidelines
Use a method when:
[...]
The operation is expensive enough that you want to communicate to the
user that they should consider caching
the result.the result.
And also:
Choosing Between Properties and Methods
Do use a method, rather than a
property, in the following situations.
The operation is orders of magnitude slower than a field set would be. If
you are even considering providing an
asynchronous version of an operation
to avoid blocking the thread, it is
very likely that the operation is too
expensive to be a property. In
particular, operations that access the
network or the file system (other than
once for initialization) should most
likely be methods, not properties.

True. Getters should either access a simple member, or should compute and cache a derived value and then return the cached value (subsequent gets without interleaved sets should merely return that value). If I have a function that is going to do a lot of computation, then I name it computeX, not getX.

All in all, very few of my methods are so expensive in terms of time that it would matter based on the guidelines as posted by Thomas. But the thing is that generally calls to a getter should not affect that state of the class. I have no problem writing a getter that actually runs a calculation when called though.

In general, I write short, efficient ones. But you might have complex ones -- you need to consider how the getter will be used. And if it is an external API, you don't have any control how it is used - so shoot for efficiency.

I would agree with this. It is useful to have calculated properties for example for things like Age based on DateOfBirth. But I would avoid complex logic like having to go to a database just to calculate the value of an object's property. Use method in that case.

My opinion is that getter should be lightweight, but again as you say there is a broad definition of "lightweight", adding a logger is fine for tracing purpose, and probably some cache logic too and database/web service retrieval .. ouch. your getter is already considered heavy.
Getter are syntaxic sugar like setters, I consider that method are more flexible because of the simplicity of using them asynchronously.
But there is no expectation set for your getter performance (maybe try to mention it in the cough documentation ), as it could be trying to retrieve fresh values from slow source.
Others are certainly considering getter for simple objects, but as your object could be a proxy for your backend object, I really see not point too set performance expectations as it helps you makes the code more readable and more maintainable.
So my answer would be, "it depends", mainly on the level of abstraction of your object ( short logic for low level object as the value should probably be calculated on the setter level, long ones for hight level ).

How to get optimization from a "pure function" in C#?

If I have the following function, it is considered pure in that it has no side effects and will always produce the same result given the same input x.
public static int AddOne(int x) { return x + 1; }
As I understand it, if the runtime understood the functional purity it could optimize execution so that return values wouldn't have to be re-calculated.
Is there a way to achieve this kind of runtime optimization in C#? And I assume there is a name for this kind of optimization. What's it called?
Edit: Obviously, my example function wouldn't have a lot of benefit from this kind of optimization. The example was given to express the type of purity I had in mind rather than the real-world example.

As others have noted, if you want to save on the cost of re-computing a result you've already computed, then you can memoize the function. This trades increased memory usage for increased speed -- remember to clear your cache occasionally if you suspect that you might run out of memory should the cache grow without bound.
However, there are other optimizations one can perform on pure functions than memoizing their results. For example, pure functions, having no side effects, are usually safe to call on other threads. Algorithms which use a lot of pure functions can often be parallelized to take advantage of multiple cores.
This area will become increasingly important as massively multi-core machines become less expensive and more common. We have a long-term research goal for the C# language to figure out some way to take advantage of the power of pure functions (and impure but "isolated" functions) in the language, compiler and runtime. But doing so involves many difficult problems, problems about which there is little consensus in industry or academia as to the best approach. Top minds are thinking about it, but do not expect any major results any time soon.

if the calculation was a costly one, you could cache the result in a dictionary?
static Dictionary<int, int> cache = new Dictionary<int, int>();
public static int AddOne(int x)
{
int result;
if(!cache.TryGetValue(x, out result))
{
result = x + 1;
cache[x] = result;
}
return result;
}
of course, the dictionary lookup in this case is more costly than the add :)
There's another much cooler way to do functional memoization explained by Wes Dyer here: http://blogs.msdn.com/wesdyer/archive/2007/01/26/function-memoization.aspx - if you do a LOT of this caching, then his Memoize function might save you a lot of code...

I think you're looking for functional memoization

The technique you are after is memoization: cache the results of execution, keyed off the arguments passed in to the function, in an array or dictionary. Runtimes do not tend to apply it automatically, although there are certainly cases where they would. Neither C# nor .NET applies memoization automatically. You can implement memoization yourself - it's rather easy -, but doing so is generally useful only for slower pure functions where you tend to repeat calculations and where you have enough memory.

This will probably be inlined (aka inline expansion) by the compiler ...
Just make sure you compile your code with the "Optimize Code" flag set (in VS : project properties / build tab / Optimize Code)
The other thing you can do is to cache the results (aka memoization). However, there is a huge initial performance hit due to your lookup logic, so this is interesting only for slow functions (ie not an int addition).
There is also a memory impact, but this can be managed through a clever use of weak references.
As I understand it, if the runtime
understood the functional purity it
could optimize execution so that
return values wouldn't have to be
re-calculated.
In your example, the runtime WILL have to compute the result, unless x is known at compile time. In that case, your code will be further optimized through the use of constant folding

How could the compiler do that ? How does it know what values of x are going to be passed in at runtime?
and re: other answers that mention inlining...
My understanding is that inlining (as an optimization) is warranted for small functions that are used only once (or only a very few times...) not because they have no side effects...

A compiler can optimize this function through a combination of inlining (replacing a function call with the body of that function at the call site) and constant propagation (replacing an expression with no free variables with the result of that expression). For example, in this bit of code:
AddOne(5);
AddOne can be inlined:
5 + 1;
Constant propagation can then simplify the expression:
6;
(Dead code elimination can then simplify this expression even further, but this is just an example).
Knowing that AddOne() has no side effects might also enable the a compiler to perform common subexpression elimination, so that:
AddOne(3) + AddOne(3)
may be transformed to:
int x = AddOne(3);
x + x;
or by strength reduction, even:
2*AddOne(3);
There is no way to command the c# JIT compiler to perform these optimizations; it optimizes at its own discretion. But it's pretty smart, and you should feel comfortable relying on it to perform these sorts of transformations without your intervention.

Another option is to use a fody plugin https://github.com/Dresel/MethodCache
you can decorate methods that should be cached. When using this you should of course take into consideration all the comments mentioned in the other answers.