Related
I have a simple class intended to store scaled integral values
using member variables "scaled_value" (long) with a "scale_factor".
I have a constructor that fills a new class instance with a decimal
value (although I think the value type is irrelevant).
Assignment to the "scaled_value" slot appears... to not happen.
I've inserted an explicit assignment of the constant 1 to it.
The Debug.Assert below fails... and scaled_value is zero.
On the assertion break in the immediate window I can inspect/set using assignment/inspect "scale_factor"; it changes as I set it.
I can inspect "scaled_value". It is always zero. I can type an
assignment to it which the immediate window executes, but its value
doesn't change.
I'm using Visual Studio 2017 with C# 2017.
What is magic about this slot?
public class ScaledLong : Base // handles scaled-by-power-of-ten long numbers
// intended to support equivalent of fast decimal arithmetic while hiding scale factors from user
{
public long scaled_value; // up to log10_MaxLong digits of decimal precision
public sbyte scale_factor; // power of ten representing location of decimal point range -21..+21. Set by constructor AND NEVER CHANGED.
public byte byte_size; // holds size of value in underlying memory array
string format_string;
<other constructors with same arguments except last value type>
public ScaledLong(sbyte sf, byte size, string format, decimal initial_value)
{
scale_factor = sf;
byte_size = size;
format_string = format;
decimal temp;
sbyte exponent;
{ // rip exponent out of decimal value leaving behind an integer;
_decimal_structure.value = initial_value;
exponent = (sbyte)_decimal_structure.Exponent;
_decimal_structure.Exponent = 0; // now decimal value is integral
temp = _decimal_structure.value;
}
sbyte sfDelta = (sbyte)(sf - exponent);
if (sfDelta >= 0)
{ // sfDelta > 0
this.scaled_value = 1;
Debug.Assert(scaled_value == 1);
scaled_value = (long)Math.Truncate(temp * DecimalTenToPower[sfDelta]);
}
else
{
temp = Math.Truncate(temp / DecimalHalfTenToPower[-sfDelta]);
temp += (temp % 2); /// this can overflow for value at very top of range, not worth fixing; note: this works for both + and- numbers (?)
scaled_value = (long)(temp / 2); // final result
}
}
The biggest puzzles often have the stupidest foundations. This one is a lesson in unintended side effects.
I found this by thinking about, wondering how in earth a member can get modified in unexpected ways. I found the solution before I read #mjwills comment, but he was definitely sniffing at the right thing.
What I left out (of course!) was that I had just coded a ToString() method for the class... that wasn't debugged. Why did I leave it out? Because it obviously can't affect anything so it can't be part of the problem.
Bzzzzt! it used the member variable as a scratchpad and zeroed it (there's the side effect); that was obviously unintended.
When this means is that when code the just runs, ToString() isn't called and the member variable DOES get modified correctly. (I even had unit tests for the "Set" routine checked all that and they were working).
But, when you are debugging.... the debugger can (and did in this case) show local variables. To do that, it will apparently call ToString() to get a nice displayable value. So the act of single stepping caused ToSTring() to get called, and its buggy scratch variable assignment zeroed out the slot after each step call.
So it wasn't a setter that bit me. It was arguably a getter. (Where is FORTRAN's PURE keyword when you need it?)
Einstein hated spooky actions at a distance. Programmers hate spooky side effects at a distance.
One wonders a bit at the idea of the debugger calling ToString() on a class, whose constructor hasn't finished. What assertions about the state of the class can ToString trust, given the constructor isn't done? I think the MS debugger should be fixed. With that, I would have spent my time debugging ToString instead of chasing this.
Thanks for putting up with my question. It got me to the answer.
If you still have a copy of that old/buggy code it would be interesting to try to build it under VS 2019 and Rider (hopefully the latest, 2022.1.1 at this point) with ReSharper (built in) allowed to do the picky scan and with a .ruleset allowed to bitch about just about anything (just for the 1st build - you'll turn off a lot but you need it to scream in order to see what to turn off). And with .NET 5.0 or 6.0
The reason I mention is that I remember some MS bragging about doing dataflow analysis to some degree in 2019 and I did see Rider complaining about some "unsafe assignments". If the old code is long lost - never mind.
CTOR-wise, if CTOR hasn't finished yet, we all know that the object "doesn't exist" yet and has invalid state, but to circumvent that, C# uses default values for everything. When you see code with constant assignments at the point of definition of data members that look trivial and pointless - the reason for that is that a lot of people do remember C++ and don't trust implicit defaults - just in case :-)
There is a 2-phase/round initialization sequence with 2 CTOR-s and implicit initializations in-between. Not widely documented (so that people with weak hearts don't use it :-) but completely deterministic and thread-safe (hidden fuses everywhere). Just for the sake of it's stability you never-ever want to have a call to any method before the 2 round is done (plain CTOR done still doesn't mean fully constructed object and any method invocation from the outside may trigger the 2nd round prematurely).
1st (plain) CTOR can be used in implicit initializations before the 2nd runs => you can control the (implicit) ordering, just have to be careful and step through it in debugger.
Oh and .ToString normally shouldn't be defined at all - on purpose :-) It's de-facto intrinsic => compiler can take it's liberties with it. Plus, if you define it, pretty soon you'll be obliged to support (and process) format specifiers.
I used to define ToJson (before big libs came to fore) to provide, let's say a controllable printable (which can also go over the wire and is 10-100 times faster than deserialization). These days VS debugger has a collection of "visualizers" and an option to tell debugger to use it or not (when it's off then it will jerk ToString's chain if it sees it.
Also, it's good to have dotPeek (or actual Reflector, owned by Redgate these days) with "find source code" turned off. Then you see the real generated code which is sometimes glorious (String is intrinsic and compiler goes a few extra miles to optimize its operations) and sometimes ugly (async/await - total faker, inefficient and flat out dangerous - how do you say "deadlock" in C# :-) - not kidding) but you need to to be able to see the final code or you are driving blind.
Consider the situation in which the main logic of a method should only actually run given a certain condition. As far as I know, there are two basic ways to achieve this:
If inverse condition is true, simply return:
public void aMethod(){
if(!aBoolean) return;
// rest of method code goes here
}
or
If original condition is true, continue execution:
public void aMethod(){
if(aBoolean){
// rest of method code goes here
}
}
Now, I would guess that which of these implementations is more efficient is dependent on the language its written in and/or how if statements and return statements, and possibly method calls, are implemented by the compiler/interpreter/VM (depending on language); so the first part of my question is, is this true?
The second part of my question is, if the the answer to the first part is "yes", which of the above code-flow patterns is more efficient specifically in C#/.NET 4.6.x?
Edit:
In reference to Dark Falcon's comment: the purpose of this question is not actually to fix performance issues or optimize any real code I've written, I am just curious about how each piece of each pattern is implemented by the compiler, e.g. for arguments sake, if it was compiled verbatim with no compiler optimizations, which would be more efficient?
TL;DR It doesn't make a difference. Current generations of processors (circa Ivy Bridge and later) don't use a static branch-prediction algorithm that you can reason about anymore, so there is no possible performance gain in using one form or the other.
On most older processors, the static branch-prediction strategy is generally that forward conditional jumps are assumed to be taken, while backwards conditional jumps are assumed not-taken. Therefore, there might be a small performance advantage to be gained the first time the code is executed by arranging for the fall-through case to be the most likely—i.e.,
if { expected } else { unexpected }.
But the fact is, this kind of low-level performance analysis makes very little sense when writing in a managed, JIT-compiled language like C#.
You're getting a lot of answers that say readability and maintainability should be your primary concern when writing code. This is regrettably common with "performance" questions, and while it is completely true and unarguable, it mostly skirts the question instead of answering it.
Moreover, it isn't clear why form "A" would be intrinsically more readable than form "B", or vice versa. There are just as many arguments one way or the other—do all parameter validation at the top of the function, or ensure there is only a single return point—and it ultimately gets down to doing what your style guide says, except in really egregious cases where you'd have to contort the code in all sorts of terrible ways, and then you should obviously do what is most readable.
Beyond being a completely reasonable question to ask on conceptual/theoretical grounds, understanding the performance implications also seems like an excellent way to make an informed decision about which general form to adopt when writing your style guide.
The remainder of the existing answers consist of misguided speculation, or downright incorrect information. Of course, that makes sense. Branch prediction is complicated, and as processors get smarter, it only gets harder to understand what is actually happening (or going to happen) under the hood.
First, let's get a couple of things straight. You make reference in the question to analyzing the performance of unoptimized code. No, you don't ever want to do that. It is a waste of time; you'll get meaningless data that does not reflect real-world usage, and then you'll try and draw conclusions from that data, which will end up being wrong (or maybe right, but for the wrong reasons, which is just as bad). Unless you're shipping unoptimized code to your clients (which you shouldn't be doing), then you don't care how unoptimized code performs. When writing in C#, there are effectively two levels of optimization. The first is performed by the C# compiler when it is generating the intermediate language (IL). This is controlled by the optimization switch in the project settings. The second level of optimization is performed by the JIT compiler when it translates the IL into machine code. This is a separate setting, and you can actually analyze the JITed machine code with optimization enabled or disabled. When you're profiling or benchmarking, or even analyzing the generated machine code, you need to have both levels of optimizations enabled.
But benchmarking optimized code is difficult, because the optimization often interferes with the thing you're trying to test. If you tried to benchmark code like that shown in the question, an optimizing compiler would likely notice that neither one of them is actually doing anything useful and transform them into no-ops. One no-op is equally fast as another no-op—or maybe it's not, and that's actually worse, because then all you're benchmarking is noise that has nothing to do with performance.
The best way to go here is to actually understand, on a conceptual level, how the code is going to be transformed by a compiler into machine code. Not only does that allow you to escape the difficulties of creating a good benchmark, but it also has value above and beyond the numbers. A decent programmer knows how to write code that produces correct results; a good programmer knows what is happening under the hood (and then makes an informed decision about whether or not they need to care).
There has been some speculation about whether the compiler will transform form "A" and form "B" into equivalent code. It turns out that the answer is complicated. The IL will almost certainly be different because it will be a more or less literal translation of the C# code that you actually write, regardless of whether or not optimizations are enabled. But it turns out that you really don't care about that, because IL isn't executed directly. It's only executed after the JIT compiler gets done with it, and the JIT compiler will apply its own set of optimizations. The exact optimizations depend on exactly what type of code you've written. If you have:
int A1(bool condition)
{
if (condition) return 42;
return 0;
}
int A2(bool condition)
{
if (!condition) return 0;
return 42;
}
it is very likely that the optimized machine code will be the same. In fact, even something like:
void B1(bool condition)
{
if (condition)
{
DoComplicatedThingA();
DoComplicatedThingB();
}
else
{
throw new InvalidArgumentException();
}
}
void B2(bool condition)
{
if (!condition)
{
throw new InvalidArgumentException();
}
DoComplicatedThingA();
DoComplicatedThingB();
}
will be treated as equivalent in the hands of a sufficiently capable optimizer. It is easy to see why: they are equivalent. It is trivial to prove that one form can be rewritten in the other without changing the semantics or behavior, and that is precisely what an optimizer's job is.
But let's assume that they did give you different machine code, either because you wrote complicated enough code that the optimizer couldn't prove that they were equivalent, or because your optimizer was just falling down on the job (which can sometimes happen with a JIT optimizer, since it prioritizes speed of code generation over maximally efficient generated code). For expository purposes, we'll imagine that the machine code is something like the following (vastly simplified):
C1:
cmp condition, 0 // test the value of the bool parameter against 0 (false)
jne ConditionWasTrue // if true (condition != 1), jump elsewhere;
// otherwise, fall through
call DoComplicatedStuff // condition was false, so do some stuff
ret // return
ConditionWasTrue:
call ThrowException // condition was true, throw an exception and never return
C2:
cmp condition, 0 // test the value of the bool parameter against 0 (false)
je ConditionWasFalse // if false (condition == 0), jump elsewhere;
// otherwise, fall through
call DoComplicatedStuff // condition was true, so do some stuff
ret // return
ConditionWasFalse:
call ThrowException // condition was false, throw an exception and never return
That cmp instruction is equivalent to your if test: it checks the value of condition and determines whether it's true or false, implicitly setting some flags inside the CPU. The next instruction is a conditional branch: it branches to the specification location/label based on the values of one or more flags. In this case, je is going to jump if the "equals" flag is set, while jne is going to jump if the "equals" flag is not set. Simple enough, right? This is exactly how it works on the x86 family of processors, which is probably the CPU for which your JIT compiler is emitting code.
And now we get to the heart of the question that you're really trying to ask; namely, does it matter whether we execute a je instruction to jump if the comparison set the equal flag, or whether we execute a jne instruction to jump if the comparison did not set the equal flag? Again, unfortunately, the answer is complicated, but enlightening.
Before continuing, we need to develop some understanding of branch prediction. These conditional jumps are branches to some arbitrary section in the code. A branch can either be taken (which means the branch actually happens, and the processor begins executing code found at a completely different location), or it can be not taken (which means that execution falls through to the next instruction as if the branch instruction wasn't even there). Branch prediction is very important because mispredicted branches are very expensive on modern processors with deep pipelines that use speculative execution. If it predicts right, it continues uninterrupted; however, if it predicts wrong, it has to throw away all of the code that it speculatively executed and start over. Therefore, a common low-level optimization technique is replacing branches with clever branchless code in cases where the branch is likely to be mispredicted. A sufficiently smart optimizer would turn if (condition) { return 42; } else { return 0; } into a conditional move that didn't use a branch at all, regardless of which way you wrote the if statement, making branch prediction irrelevant. But we're imagining that this didn't happen, and you actually have code with a conditional branch—how does it get predicted?
How branch prediction works is complicated, and getting more complicated all the time as CPU vendors continue to improve the circuitry and logic inside of their processors. Improving branch prediction logic is a significant way that hardware vendors add value and speed to the things they're trying to sell, and every vendor uses different and proprietary branch-prediction mechanisms. Worse, every generation of processor uses slightly different branch-prediction mechanisms, so reasoning about it in the "general case" is exceedingly difficult. Static compilers offer options that allow you to optimize the code they generate for a particular generation of microprocessor, but this doesn't generalize well when shipping code to a large number of clients. You have little choice but to resort to a "general purpose" optimization strategy, although this usually works pretty well. The big promise of a JIT compiler is that, because it compiles the code on your machine right before you use it, it can optimize for your specific machine, just like a static compiler invoked with the perfect options. This promise hasn't exactly been reached, but I won't digress down that rabbit hole.
All modern processors have dynamic branch prediction, but how exactly they implement it is variable. Basically, they "remember" whether a particular (recent) branch was taken or not taken, and then predict that it will go this way the next time. There are all kinds of pathological cases that you can imagine here, and there are, correspondingly, all kinds of cases in or approaches to the branch-prediction logic that help to mitigate the possible damage. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything you can do yourself when writing code to mitigate this problem—except getting rid of branches entirely, which isn't even an option available to you when writing in C# or other managed languages. The optimizer will do whatever it will; you just have to cross your fingers and hope that it is the most optimal thing. In the code we're considering, then, dynamic branch prediction is basically irrelevant and we won't talk about it any more.
What is important is static branch prediction—what prediction is the processor going to make the first time it executes this code, the first time it encounters this branch, when it doesn't have any real basis on which to make a decision? There are a bunch of plausible static prediction algorithms:
Predict all branches are not taken (some early processors did, in fact, use this).
Assume "backwards" conditional branches are taken, while "forwards" conditional branches are not taken. The improvement here is that loops (which jump backwards in the execution stream) will be correctly predicted most of the time. This is the static branch-prediction strategy used by most Intel x86 processors, up to about Sandy Bridge.
Because this strategy was used for so long, the standard advice was to arrange your if statements accordingly:
if (condition)
{
// most likely case
}
else
{
// least likely case
}
This possibly looks counter-intuitive, but you have to go back to what the machine code looks like that this C# code will be transformed into. Compilers will generally transform the if statement into a comparison and a conditional branch into the else block. This static branch prediction algorithm will predict that branch as "not taken", since it's a forward branch. The if block will just fall through without taking the branch, which is why you want to put the "most likely" case there.
If you get into the habit of writing code this way, it might have a performance advantage on certain processors, but it's never enough of an advantage to sacrifice readability. Especially since it only matters the first time the code is executed (after that, dynamic branch prediction kicks in), and executing code for the first time is always slow in a JIT-compiled language!
Always use the dynamic predictor's result, even for never-seen branches.
This strategy is pretty strange, but it's actually what most modern Intel processors use (circa Ivy Bridge and later). Basically, even though the dynamic branch-predictor may have never seen this branch and therefore may not have any information about it, the processor still queries it and uses the prediction that it returns. You can imagine this as being equivalent to an arbitrary static-prediction algorithm.
In this case, it absolutely does not matter how you arrange the conditions of an if statement, because the initial prediction is essentially going to be random. Some 50% of the time, you'll pay the penalty of a mispredicted branch, while the other 50% of the time, you'll benefit from a correctly predicted branch. And that's only the first time—after that, the odds get even better because the dynamic predictor now has more information about the nature of the branch.
This answer has already gotten way too long, so I'll refrain from discussing static prediction hints (implemented only in the Pentium 4) and other such interesting topics, bringing our exploration of branch prediction to a close. If you're interested in more, examine the CPU vendor's technical manuals (although most of what we know has to be empirically determined), read Agner Fog's optimization guides (for x86 processors), search online for various white-papers and blog posts, and/or ask additional questions about it.
The takeaway is probably that it doesn't matter, except on processors that use a certain static branch-prediction strategy, and even there, it hardly matters when you're writing code in a JIT-compiled language like C# because the first-time compilation delay exceeds the cost of a single mispredicted branch (which may not even be mispredicted).
Same issue when validating parameters to functions.
It's much cleaner to act like a night-club bouncer, kicking the no-hopers out as soon as possible.
public void aMethod(SomeParam p)
{
if (!aBoolean || p == null)
return;
// Write code in the knowledge that everything is fine
}
Letting them in only causes trouble later on.
public void aMethod(SomeParam p)
{
if (aBoolean)
{
if (p != null)
{
// Write code, but now you're indented
// and other if statements will be added later
}
// Later on, someone else could add code here by mistake.
}
// or here...
}
The C# language prioritizes safety (bug prevention) over speed. In other words, almost everything has been slowed down to prevent bugs, one way or another.
If you need speed so badly that you start worrying about if statements, then perhaps a faster language would suit your purposes better, possibly C++
Compiler writers can and do make use of statistics to optimize code, for example "else clauses are only executed 30% of the time".
However, the hardware guys probably do a better job of predicting execution paths. I would guess that these days, the most effective optimizations happen within the CPU, with their L1 and L2 caches, and compiler writers don't need to do a thing.
I am just curious about how each piece of each pattern is implemented
by the compiler, e.g. for arguments sake, if it was compiled verbatim
with no compiler optimizations, which would be more efficient?
The best way to test efficiency in this way is to run benchmarks on the code samples you're concerned with. With C# in particular it is not going to be obvious what the JIT is doing with these scenarios.
As a side note, I throw in a +1 for the other answers that point out that efficiency isn't only determined at the compiler level - code maintainability involves magnitudes of levels of efficiency more than what you'll get from this specific sort of pattern choice.
As [~Dark Falcon] mentioned you should not be concerned by micro optimization of little bits of code, the compiler will most probably optimize both approaches to the same thing.
Instead you should be very concerned about your program maintainability and ease of read
From this perspective you should choose B for two reasons:
It only has one exit point (just one return)
The if block is surrounded by curly braces
edit
But hey! as told in the comments that is just my opinion and what I consider good practices
When I ran ReSharper on my code, for example:
if (some condition)
{
Some code...
}
ReSharper gave me the above warning (Invert "if" statement to reduce nesting), and suggested the following correction:
if (!some condition) return;
Some code...
I would like to understand why that's better. I always thought that using "return" in the middle of a method problematic, somewhat like "goto".
It is not only aesthetic, but it also reduces the maximum nesting level inside the method. This is generally regarded as a plus because it makes methods easier to understand (and indeed, many static analysis tools provide a measure of this as one of the indicators of code quality).
On the other hand, it also makes your method have multiple exit points, something that another group of people believes is a no-no.
Personally, I agree with ReSharper and the first group (in a language that has exceptions I find it silly to discuss "multiple exit points"; almost anything can throw, so there are numerous potential exit points in all methods).
Regarding performance: both versions should be equivalent (if not at the IL level, then certainly after the jitter is through with the code) in every language. Theoretically this depends on the compiler, but practically any widely used compiler of today is capable of handling much more advanced cases of code optimization than this.
A return in the middle of the method is not necessarily bad. It might be better to return immediately if it makes the intent of the code clearer. For example:
double getPayAmount() {
double result;
if (_isDead) result = deadAmount();
else {
if (_isSeparated) result = separatedAmount();
else {
if (_isRetired) result = retiredAmount();
else result = normalPayAmount();
};
}
return result;
};
In this case, if _isDead is true, we can immediately get out of the method. It might be better to structure it this way instead:
double getPayAmount() {
if (_isDead) return deadAmount();
if (_isSeparated) return separatedAmount();
if (_isRetired) return retiredAmount();
return normalPayAmount();
};
I've picked this code from the refactoring catalog. This specific refactoring is called: Replace Nested Conditional with Guard Clauses.
This is a bit of a religious argument, but I agree with ReSharper that you should prefer less nesting. I believe that this outweighs the negatives of having multiple return paths from a function.
The key reason for having less nesting is to improve code readability and maintainability. Remember that many other developers will need to read your code in the future, and code with less indentation is generally much easier to read.
Preconditions are a great example of where it is okay to return early at the start of the function. Why should the readability of the rest of the function be affected by the presence of a precondition check?
As for the negatives about returning multiple times from a method - debuggers are pretty powerful now, and it's very easy to find out exactly where and when a particular function is returning.
Having multiple returns in a function is not going to affect the maintainance programmer's job.
Poor code readability will.
As others have mentioned, there shouldn't be a performance hit, but there are other considerations. Aside from those valid concerns, this also can open you up to gotchas in some circumstances. Suppose you were dealing with a double instead:
public void myfunction(double exampleParam){
if(exampleParam > 0){
//Body will *not* be executed if Double.IsNan(exampleParam)
}
}
Contrast that with the seemingly equivalent inversion:
public void myfunction(double exampleParam){
if(exampleParam <= 0)
return;
//Body *will* be executed if Double.IsNan(exampleParam)
}
So in certain circumstances what appears to be a a correctly inverted if might not be.
The idea of only returning at the end of a function came back from the days before languages had support for exceptions. It enabled programs to rely on being able to put clean-up code at the end of a method, and then being sure it would be called and some other programmer wouldn't hide a return in the method that caused the cleanup code to be skipped. Skipped cleanup code could result in a memory or resource leak.
However, in a language that supports exceptions, it provides no such guarantees. In a language that supports exceptions, the execution of any statement or expression can cause a control flow that causes the method to end. This means clean-up must be done through using the finally or using keywords.
Anyway, I'm saying I think a lot of people quote the 'only return at the end of a method' guideline without understanding why it was ever a good thing to do, and that reducing nesting to improve readability is probably a better aim.
I'd like to add that there is name for those inverted if's - Guard Clause. I use it whenever I can.
I hate reading code where there is if at the beginning, two screens of code and no else. Just invert if and return. That way nobody will waste time scrolling.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GuardClause
It doesn't only affect aesthetics, but it also prevents code nesting.
It can actually function as a precondition to ensure that your data is valid as well.
This is of course subjective, but I think it strongly improves on two points:
It is now immediately obvious that your function has nothing left to do if condition holds.
It keeps the nesting level down. Nesting hurts readability more than you'd think.
Multiple return points were a problem in C (and to a lesser extent C++) because they forced you to duplicate clean-up code before each of the return points. With garbage collection, the try | finally construct and using blocks, there's really no reason why you should be afraid of them.
Ultimately it comes down to what you and your colleagues find easier to read.
Guard clauses or pre-conditions (as you can probably see) check to see if a certain condition is met and then breaks the flow of the program. They're great for places where you're really only interested in one outcome of an if statement. So rather than say:
if (something) {
// a lot of indented code
}
You reverse the condition and break if that reversed condition is fulfilled
if (!something) return false; // or another value to show your other code the function did not execute
// all the code from before, save a lot of tabs
return is nowhere near as dirty as goto. It allows you to pass a value to show the rest of your code that the function couldn't run.
You'll see the best examples of where this can be applied in nested conditions:
if (something) {
do-something();
if (something-else) {
do-another-thing();
} else {
do-something-else();
}
}
vs:
if (!something) return;
do-something();
if (!something-else) return do-something-else();
do-another-thing();
You'll find few people arguing the first is cleaner but of course, it's completely subjective. Some programmers like to know what conditions something is operating under by indentation, while I'd much rather keep method flow linear.
I won't suggest for one moment that precons will change your life or get you laid but you might find your code just that little bit easier to read.
Performance-wise, there will be no noticeable difference between the two approaches.
But coding is about more than performance. Clarity and maintainability are also very important. And, in cases like this where it doesn't affect performance, it is the only thing that matters.
There are competing schools of thought as to which approach is preferable.
One view is the one others have mentioned: the second approach reduces the nesting level, which improves code clarity. This is natural in an imperative style: when you have nothing left to do, you might as well return early.
Another view, from the perspective of a more functional style, is that a method should have only one exit point. Everything in a functional language is an expression. So if statements must always have an else clauses. Otherwise the if expression wouldn't always have a value. So in the functional style, the first approach is more natural.
There are several good points made here, but multiple return points can be unreadable as well, if the method is very lengthy. That being said, if you're going to use multiple return points just make sure that your method is short, otherwise the readability bonus of multiple return points may be lost.
Performance is in two parts. You have performance when the software is in production, but you also want to have performance while developing and debugging. The last thing a developer wants is to "wait" for something trivial. In the end, compiling this with optimization enabled will result in similar code. So it's good to know these little tricks that pay off in both scenarios.
The case in the question is clear, ReSharper is correct. Rather than nesting if statements, and creating new scope in code, you're setting a clear rule at the start of your method. It increases readability, it will be easier to maintain, and it reduces the amount of rules one has to sift through to find where they want to go.
Personally I prefer only 1 exit point. It's easy to accomplish if you keep your methods short and to the point, and it provides a predictable pattern for the next person who works on your code.
eg.
bool PerformDefaultOperation()
{
bool succeeded = false;
DataStructure defaultParameters;
if ((defaultParameters = this.GetApplicationDefaults()) != null)
{
succeeded = this.DoSomething(defaultParameters);
}
return succeeded;
}
This is also very useful if you just want to check the values of certain local variables within a function before it exits. All you need to do is place a breakpoint on the final return and you are guaranteed to hit it (unless an exception is thrown).
Avoiding multiple exit points can lead to performance gains. I am not sure about C# but in C++ the Named Return Value Optimization (Copy Elision, ISO C++ '03 12.8/15) depends on having a single exit point. This optimization avoids copy constructing your return value (in your specific example it doesn't matter). This could lead to considerable gains in performance in tight loops, as you are saving a constructor and a destructor each time the function is invoked.
But for 99% of the cases saving the additional constructor and destructor calls is not worth the loss of readability nested if blocks introduce (as others have pointed out).
Many good reasons about how the code looks like. But what about results?
Let's take a look to some C# code and its IL compiled form:
using System;
public class Test {
public static void Main(string[] args) {
if (args.Length == 0) return;
if ((args.Length+2)/3 == 5) return;
Console.WriteLine("hey!!!");
}
}
This simple snippet can be compiled. You can open the generated .exe file with ildasm and check what is the result. I won't post all the assembler thing but I'll describe the results.
The generated IL code does the following:
If the first condition is false, jumps to the code where the second is.
If it's true jumps to the last instruction. (Note: the last instruction is a return).
In the second condition the same happens after the result is calculated. Compare and: got to the Console.WriteLine if false or to the end if this is true.
Print the message and return.
So it seems that the code will jump to the end. What if we do a normal if with nested code?
using System;
public class Test {
public static void Main(string[] args) {
if (args.Length != 0 && (args.Length+2)/3 != 5)
{
Console.WriteLine("hey!!!");
}
}
}
The results are quite similar in IL instructions. The difference is that before there were two jumps per condition: if false go to next piece of code, if true go to the end. And now the IL code flows better and has 3 jumps (the compiler optimized this a bit):
First jump: when Length is 0 to a part where the code jumps again (Third jump) to the end.
Second: in the middle of the second condition to avoid one instruction.
Third: if the second condition is false, jump to the end.
Anyway, the program counter will always jump.
In theory, inverting if could lead to better performance if it increases branch prediction hit rate. In practice, I think it is very hard to know exactly how branch prediction will behave, especially after compiling, so I would not do it in my day-to-day development, except if I am writing assembly code.
More on branch prediction here.
That is simply controversial. There is no "agreement among programmers" on the question of early return. It's always subjective, as far as I know.
It's possible to make a performance argument, since it's better to have conditions that are written so they are most often true; it can also be argued that it is clearer. It does, on the other hand, create nested tests.
I don't think you will get a conclusive answer to this question.
There are a lot of insightful answers there already, but still, I would to direct to a slightly different situation: Instead of precondition, that should be put on top of a function indeed, think of a step-by-step initialization, where you have to check for each step to succeed and then continue with the next. In this case, you cannot check everything at the top.
I found my code really unreadable when writing an ASIO host application with Steinberg's ASIOSDK, as I followed the nesting paradigm. It went like eight levels deep, and I cannot see a design flaw there, as mentioned by Andrew Bullock above. Of course, I could have packed some inner code to another function, and then nested the remaining levels there to make it more readable, but this seems rather random to me.
By replacing nesting with guard clauses, I even discovered a misconception of mine regarding a portion of cleanup-code that should have occurred much earlier within the function instead of at the end. With nested branches, I would never have seen that, you could even say they led to my misconception.
So this might be another situation where inverted ifs can contribute to a clearer code.
It's a matter of opinion.
My normal approach would be to avoid single line ifs, and returns in the middle of a method.
You wouldn't want lines like it suggests everywhere in your method but there is something to be said for checking a bunch of assumptions at the top of your method, and only doing your actual work if they all pass.
In my opinion early return is fine if you are just returning void (or some useless return code you're never gonna check) and it might improve readability because you avoid nesting and at the same time you make explicit that your function is done.
If you are actually returning a returnValue - nesting is usually a better way to go cause you return your returnValue just in one place (at the end - duh), and it might make your code more maintainable in a whole lot of cases.
I'm not sure, but I think, that R# tries to avoid far jumps. When You have IF-ELSE, compiler does something like this:
Condition false -> far jump to false_condition_label
true_condition_label:
instruction1
...
instruction_n
false_condition_label:
instruction1
...
instruction_n
end block
If condition is true there is no jump and no rollout L1 cache, but jump to false_condition_label can be very far and processor must rollout his own cache. Synchronising cache is expensive. R# tries replace far jumps into short jumps and in this case there is bigger probability, that all instructions are already in cache.
I think it depends on what you prefer, as mentioned, theres no general agreement afaik.
To reduce annoyment, you may reduce this kind of warning to "Hint"
My idea is that the return "in the middle of a function" shouldn't be so "subjective".
The reason is quite simple, take this code:
function do_something( data ){
if (!is_valid_data( data ))
return false;
do_something_that_take_an_hour( data );
istance = new object_with_very_painful_constructor( data );
if ( istance is not valid ) {
error_message( );
return ;
}
connect_to_database ( );
get_some_other_data( );
return;
}
Maybe the first "return" it's not SO intuitive, but that's really saving.
There are too many "ideas" about clean codes, that simply need more practise to lose their "subjective" bad ideas.
There are several advantages to this sort of coding but for me the big win is, if you can return quick you can improve the speed of your application. IE I know that because of Precondition X that I can return quickly with an error. This gets rid of the error cases first and reduces the complexity of your code. In a lot of cases because the cpu pipeline can be now be cleaner it can stop pipeline crashes or switches. Secondly if you are in a loop, breaking or returning out quickly can save you a lots of cpu. Some programmers use loop invariants to do this sort of quick exit but in this you can broke your cpu pipeline and even create memory seek problem and mean the the cpu needs to load from outside cache. But basically I think you should do what you intended, that is end the loop or function not create a complex code path just to implement some abstract notion of correct code. If the only tool you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.
I am trying to track down a very elusive bug in an application that manipulates a FlowDocument. I have shown below three consecutive lines of debugging code, together with their output:
Debug.Assert(ReferenceEquals(document1, document2));
Debug.WriteLine(document1.Blocks.Count); // 1
Debug.WriteLine(document2.Blocks.Count); // 3
Can anyone help me to understand how two references to the same object can have different values for a given property? Or am I missing something about the way ReferenceEquals works?
Thanks,
Tim
Edit:
If I change the assertion to an if block, the debugging code never runs ...
if (ReferenceEquals(document1, document2))
{
Debug.WriteLine(document1.Blocks.Count);
Debug.WriteLine(document2.Blocks.Count);
}
... which makes me feel utterly stupid, because the ReferenceEquals test is clearly working, but I don't understand why the assertion is not working.
Two things that might be happening from the top of my mind:
Accessing Blocks or Blocks.Count might mutate state (it shouldn't, but it is possible).
The object might be changed on another thread between the two calls. Do you use multi-threading in the application ?
Also, if the references are of different types (ie. document2 is of an inherited type), the property might be overloaded to return something different. You could check to see whether document1.GetType() == document2.GetType().
Edit in response to your update
Debug.Assert will only ever run, if the assembly is compiled in Debug mode. If you are running Release, it will not be run. This is because Debug.Assert is decorated with the [Conditional("DEBUG")] attribute.
It seems that the issue is the fact that you indeed have 2 different objects.
If a property has side effects it can yield different results each time you call it. E.g. DateTime.Now does not always equal DateTime.Now.
Without knowing anything more about the code, that would be my guess.
EDIT: Using Reflector on FlowDocument shows that Blocks return a new instance each time it is called. Additionally, the Count property BlockCollection is rather elaborate, so I would take a closer look at that. Unfortunately I don't know the involved types very well, so I can't immediately tell you what is wrong.
Possibilities (some of which you have already discounted in the comments):
Some external process, say something that is loading Blocks into FlowDocument, is altering the value between writes.
Heisenberg: reading the Blocks property affects it. This happens sometimes when reading rows from a data source. I'm not familiar with FlowDocument so I'm not sure how feasible this is.
If the instances were declared as different types, their references would still be equal, but the value of Blocks (or Blocks.Count) could be overridden, resulting in different return values since different code might be called - like Object.ToString() vs Int.ToString().
You're somehow calling this debug code in the middle of a loop. This could happen if you're running it in the command window or some attached debugger instead of within the application.
You have dead pixels on your screen that make the first "3" look like a "1".
You live next to a nuclear reactor.
Some things to try:
Run your .Assert code in a loop and see if the values stabilize.
Set a read/write breakpoint on the Blocks value. (I know you can do this in C, but haven't tried it in C#)
Update
Regarding your additional question about .Assert() not working as expected:
Just looked at this note on MSDN regarding Debug.Assert().
By default, the Debug.Assert method works only in debug builds. Use the Trace.Assert method if you want to do assertions in release builds. For more information, see Assertions in Managed Code.
Are you running a debug build or a release build?
Are you certain that the Blocks object reference points to the same object? Try a
Debug.Assert(ReferenceEquals(document1.Blocks, document2.Blocks));
and see if that succeeds.
When I ran ReSharper on my code, for example:
if (some condition)
{
Some code...
}
ReSharper gave me the above warning (Invert "if" statement to reduce nesting), and suggested the following correction:
if (!some condition) return;
Some code...
I would like to understand why that's better. I always thought that using "return" in the middle of a method problematic, somewhat like "goto".
It is not only aesthetic, but it also reduces the maximum nesting level inside the method. This is generally regarded as a plus because it makes methods easier to understand (and indeed, many static analysis tools provide a measure of this as one of the indicators of code quality).
On the other hand, it also makes your method have multiple exit points, something that another group of people believes is a no-no.
Personally, I agree with ReSharper and the first group (in a language that has exceptions I find it silly to discuss "multiple exit points"; almost anything can throw, so there are numerous potential exit points in all methods).
Regarding performance: both versions should be equivalent (if not at the IL level, then certainly after the jitter is through with the code) in every language. Theoretically this depends on the compiler, but practically any widely used compiler of today is capable of handling much more advanced cases of code optimization than this.
A return in the middle of the method is not necessarily bad. It might be better to return immediately if it makes the intent of the code clearer. For example:
double getPayAmount() {
double result;
if (_isDead) result = deadAmount();
else {
if (_isSeparated) result = separatedAmount();
else {
if (_isRetired) result = retiredAmount();
else result = normalPayAmount();
};
}
return result;
};
In this case, if _isDead is true, we can immediately get out of the method. It might be better to structure it this way instead:
double getPayAmount() {
if (_isDead) return deadAmount();
if (_isSeparated) return separatedAmount();
if (_isRetired) return retiredAmount();
return normalPayAmount();
};
I've picked this code from the refactoring catalog. This specific refactoring is called: Replace Nested Conditional with Guard Clauses.
This is a bit of a religious argument, but I agree with ReSharper that you should prefer less nesting. I believe that this outweighs the negatives of having multiple return paths from a function.
The key reason for having less nesting is to improve code readability and maintainability. Remember that many other developers will need to read your code in the future, and code with less indentation is generally much easier to read.
Preconditions are a great example of where it is okay to return early at the start of the function. Why should the readability of the rest of the function be affected by the presence of a precondition check?
As for the negatives about returning multiple times from a method - debuggers are pretty powerful now, and it's very easy to find out exactly where and when a particular function is returning.
Having multiple returns in a function is not going to affect the maintainance programmer's job.
Poor code readability will.
As others have mentioned, there shouldn't be a performance hit, but there are other considerations. Aside from those valid concerns, this also can open you up to gotchas in some circumstances. Suppose you were dealing with a double instead:
public void myfunction(double exampleParam){
if(exampleParam > 0){
//Body will *not* be executed if Double.IsNan(exampleParam)
}
}
Contrast that with the seemingly equivalent inversion:
public void myfunction(double exampleParam){
if(exampleParam <= 0)
return;
//Body *will* be executed if Double.IsNan(exampleParam)
}
So in certain circumstances what appears to be a a correctly inverted if might not be.
The idea of only returning at the end of a function came back from the days before languages had support for exceptions. It enabled programs to rely on being able to put clean-up code at the end of a method, and then being sure it would be called and some other programmer wouldn't hide a return in the method that caused the cleanup code to be skipped. Skipped cleanup code could result in a memory or resource leak.
However, in a language that supports exceptions, it provides no such guarantees. In a language that supports exceptions, the execution of any statement or expression can cause a control flow that causes the method to end. This means clean-up must be done through using the finally or using keywords.
Anyway, I'm saying I think a lot of people quote the 'only return at the end of a method' guideline without understanding why it was ever a good thing to do, and that reducing nesting to improve readability is probably a better aim.
I'd like to add that there is name for those inverted if's - Guard Clause. I use it whenever I can.
I hate reading code where there is if at the beginning, two screens of code and no else. Just invert if and return. That way nobody will waste time scrolling.
http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?GuardClause
It doesn't only affect aesthetics, but it also prevents code nesting.
It can actually function as a precondition to ensure that your data is valid as well.
This is of course subjective, but I think it strongly improves on two points:
It is now immediately obvious that your function has nothing left to do if condition holds.
It keeps the nesting level down. Nesting hurts readability more than you'd think.
Multiple return points were a problem in C (and to a lesser extent C++) because they forced you to duplicate clean-up code before each of the return points. With garbage collection, the try | finally construct and using blocks, there's really no reason why you should be afraid of them.
Ultimately it comes down to what you and your colleagues find easier to read.
Guard clauses or pre-conditions (as you can probably see) check to see if a certain condition is met and then breaks the flow of the program. They're great for places where you're really only interested in one outcome of an if statement. So rather than say:
if (something) {
// a lot of indented code
}
You reverse the condition and break if that reversed condition is fulfilled
if (!something) return false; // or another value to show your other code the function did not execute
// all the code from before, save a lot of tabs
return is nowhere near as dirty as goto. It allows you to pass a value to show the rest of your code that the function couldn't run.
You'll see the best examples of where this can be applied in nested conditions:
if (something) {
do-something();
if (something-else) {
do-another-thing();
} else {
do-something-else();
}
}
vs:
if (!something) return;
do-something();
if (!something-else) return do-something-else();
do-another-thing();
You'll find few people arguing the first is cleaner but of course, it's completely subjective. Some programmers like to know what conditions something is operating under by indentation, while I'd much rather keep method flow linear.
I won't suggest for one moment that precons will change your life or get you laid but you might find your code just that little bit easier to read.
Performance-wise, there will be no noticeable difference between the two approaches.
But coding is about more than performance. Clarity and maintainability are also very important. And, in cases like this where it doesn't affect performance, it is the only thing that matters.
There are competing schools of thought as to which approach is preferable.
One view is the one others have mentioned: the second approach reduces the nesting level, which improves code clarity. This is natural in an imperative style: when you have nothing left to do, you might as well return early.
Another view, from the perspective of a more functional style, is that a method should have only one exit point. Everything in a functional language is an expression. So if statements must always have an else clauses. Otherwise the if expression wouldn't always have a value. So in the functional style, the first approach is more natural.
There are several good points made here, but multiple return points can be unreadable as well, if the method is very lengthy. That being said, if you're going to use multiple return points just make sure that your method is short, otherwise the readability bonus of multiple return points may be lost.
Performance is in two parts. You have performance when the software is in production, but you also want to have performance while developing and debugging. The last thing a developer wants is to "wait" for something trivial. In the end, compiling this with optimization enabled will result in similar code. So it's good to know these little tricks that pay off in both scenarios.
The case in the question is clear, ReSharper is correct. Rather than nesting if statements, and creating new scope in code, you're setting a clear rule at the start of your method. It increases readability, it will be easier to maintain, and it reduces the amount of rules one has to sift through to find where they want to go.
Personally I prefer only 1 exit point. It's easy to accomplish if you keep your methods short and to the point, and it provides a predictable pattern for the next person who works on your code.
eg.
bool PerformDefaultOperation()
{
bool succeeded = false;
DataStructure defaultParameters;
if ((defaultParameters = this.GetApplicationDefaults()) != null)
{
succeeded = this.DoSomething(defaultParameters);
}
return succeeded;
}
This is also very useful if you just want to check the values of certain local variables within a function before it exits. All you need to do is place a breakpoint on the final return and you are guaranteed to hit it (unless an exception is thrown).
Avoiding multiple exit points can lead to performance gains. I am not sure about C# but in C++ the Named Return Value Optimization (Copy Elision, ISO C++ '03 12.8/15) depends on having a single exit point. This optimization avoids copy constructing your return value (in your specific example it doesn't matter). This could lead to considerable gains in performance in tight loops, as you are saving a constructor and a destructor each time the function is invoked.
But for 99% of the cases saving the additional constructor and destructor calls is not worth the loss of readability nested if blocks introduce (as others have pointed out).
Many good reasons about how the code looks like. But what about results?
Let's take a look to some C# code and its IL compiled form:
using System;
public class Test {
public static void Main(string[] args) {
if (args.Length == 0) return;
if ((args.Length+2)/3 == 5) return;
Console.WriteLine("hey!!!");
}
}
This simple snippet can be compiled. You can open the generated .exe file with ildasm and check what is the result. I won't post all the assembler thing but I'll describe the results.
The generated IL code does the following:
If the first condition is false, jumps to the code where the second is.
If it's true jumps to the last instruction. (Note: the last instruction is a return).
In the second condition the same happens after the result is calculated. Compare and: got to the Console.WriteLine if false or to the end if this is true.
Print the message and return.
So it seems that the code will jump to the end. What if we do a normal if with nested code?
using System;
public class Test {
public static void Main(string[] args) {
if (args.Length != 0 && (args.Length+2)/3 != 5)
{
Console.WriteLine("hey!!!");
}
}
}
The results are quite similar in IL instructions. The difference is that before there were two jumps per condition: if false go to next piece of code, if true go to the end. And now the IL code flows better and has 3 jumps (the compiler optimized this a bit):
First jump: when Length is 0 to a part where the code jumps again (Third jump) to the end.
Second: in the middle of the second condition to avoid one instruction.
Third: if the second condition is false, jump to the end.
Anyway, the program counter will always jump.
In theory, inverting if could lead to better performance if it increases branch prediction hit rate. In practice, I think it is very hard to know exactly how branch prediction will behave, especially after compiling, so I would not do it in my day-to-day development, except if I am writing assembly code.
More on branch prediction here.
That is simply controversial. There is no "agreement among programmers" on the question of early return. It's always subjective, as far as I know.
It's possible to make a performance argument, since it's better to have conditions that are written so they are most often true; it can also be argued that it is clearer. It does, on the other hand, create nested tests.
I don't think you will get a conclusive answer to this question.
There are a lot of insightful answers there already, but still, I would to direct to a slightly different situation: Instead of precondition, that should be put on top of a function indeed, think of a step-by-step initialization, where you have to check for each step to succeed and then continue with the next. In this case, you cannot check everything at the top.
I found my code really unreadable when writing an ASIO host application with Steinberg's ASIOSDK, as I followed the nesting paradigm. It went like eight levels deep, and I cannot see a design flaw there, as mentioned by Andrew Bullock above. Of course, I could have packed some inner code to another function, and then nested the remaining levels there to make it more readable, but this seems rather random to me.
By replacing nesting with guard clauses, I even discovered a misconception of mine regarding a portion of cleanup-code that should have occurred much earlier within the function instead of at the end. With nested branches, I would never have seen that, you could even say they led to my misconception.
So this might be another situation where inverted ifs can contribute to a clearer code.
It's a matter of opinion.
My normal approach would be to avoid single line ifs, and returns in the middle of a method.
You wouldn't want lines like it suggests everywhere in your method but there is something to be said for checking a bunch of assumptions at the top of your method, and only doing your actual work if they all pass.
In my opinion early return is fine if you are just returning void (or some useless return code you're never gonna check) and it might improve readability because you avoid nesting and at the same time you make explicit that your function is done.
If you are actually returning a returnValue - nesting is usually a better way to go cause you return your returnValue just in one place (at the end - duh), and it might make your code more maintainable in a whole lot of cases.
I'm not sure, but I think, that R# tries to avoid far jumps. When You have IF-ELSE, compiler does something like this:
Condition false -> far jump to false_condition_label
true_condition_label:
instruction1
...
instruction_n
false_condition_label:
instruction1
...
instruction_n
end block
If condition is true there is no jump and no rollout L1 cache, but jump to false_condition_label can be very far and processor must rollout his own cache. Synchronising cache is expensive. R# tries replace far jumps into short jumps and in this case there is bigger probability, that all instructions are already in cache.
I think it depends on what you prefer, as mentioned, theres no general agreement afaik.
To reduce annoyment, you may reduce this kind of warning to "Hint"
My idea is that the return "in the middle of a function" shouldn't be so "subjective".
The reason is quite simple, take this code:
function do_something( data ){
if (!is_valid_data( data ))
return false;
do_something_that_take_an_hour( data );
istance = new object_with_very_painful_constructor( data );
if ( istance is not valid ) {
error_message( );
return ;
}
connect_to_database ( );
get_some_other_data( );
return;
}
Maybe the first "return" it's not SO intuitive, but that's really saving.
There are too many "ideas" about clean codes, that simply need more practise to lose their "subjective" bad ideas.
There are several advantages to this sort of coding but for me the big win is, if you can return quick you can improve the speed of your application. IE I know that because of Precondition X that I can return quickly with an error. This gets rid of the error cases first and reduces the complexity of your code. In a lot of cases because the cpu pipeline can be now be cleaner it can stop pipeline crashes or switches. Secondly if you are in a loop, breaking or returning out quickly can save you a lots of cpu. Some programmers use loop invariants to do this sort of quick exit but in this you can broke your cpu pipeline and even create memory seek problem and mean the the cpu needs to load from outside cache. But basically I think you should do what you intended, that is end the loop or function not create a complex code path just to implement some abstract notion of correct code. If the only tool you have is a hammer then everything looks like a nail.