Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 17th Nov 2010 23:10 UTC, submitted by Debjit
Thread beginning with comment 450479
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 22:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-06
All I know is that it is or at least WAS a common practice back in the day of mainframes. Compilers were written to be highly optimizing which included being able to identify unused or non-functional (code that doesn't contribute to the data end result in any way) and not include it when translating to machine code.
This was a practice in place decades ago.
I do not see why it should indicate their intentions other than to add optimizations that could possibly speed things up. I liken it more to a developer sitting there one day and having light bulb go on in his head and saying "HEY! I've got an idea, why don't we do THIS!"
But since we cannot know this, it could very well be that they analyzed the tests the competition uses and realized they could speed it up that way...