@brouhaha @mtomczak@qoto.org @b0rk for some reason I cant see the toot you are referring to.

@brouhaha @mtomczak@qoto.org @b0rk i believe it's my previous toot with the for loop.

I believe the i++ statement in the for loop init is a tradition. Any loop update statement can be used here, loops dont have to just increment.

The for loop is basically syntactic sugar for a while construct

for(a;b;c) <statement> is equivalent to a;while(b) {<statement>; c}

@f4grx @b0rk Maybe I replied to wrong toot. I understand traditional C loops. I was questioning the intent of mtomczak's C++ style comments, i.e.
int i{0} for initialization and ++i instead of i++.

@brouhaha @b0rk haha I cant see the thing again because I think blork blocked me. I dont think I was *THAT* offensive? whatever.

I{0} looks like a "C++ism" to me. It's invalid in C.

@f4grx @b0rk The braced initializer is definitely a C++ thing, and there may be reasons to prefer it under other circumstances, but for a scalar initializer I think it doesn't do anything but add a tiny bit of obfuscation.
I don't think the toot was entirely serious.

@brouhaha @f4grx @b0rk ++i used to be more efficient than i++ with old compilers/cpus. Totally not a problem anymore with modern stuff.

@ives @f4grx @b0rk I used a lot of old C++ compilers (back to 1982), and was never aware of that. I could see it being different in a subexpression, but it slightly surprises me that it would ever result in different code when it's an entire expression. Even if a compiler was inclined to generate different code, in the case where it's not a subexpression I'd expect even the most rudimentary peephole optimizer to eliminate the difference.

@brouhaha @f4grx @b0rk Definitely one of the more trivial situations to optimize. I suppose it could get a bit more complex in expressions or when overriding operators.
And then there are processors like the Motorola 68000 that have support for post-increment and pre-decrement, but not the others.
But yeah, best to write code that expresses your intention as clearly as possible and let the compiler deal with optimizing it.

@f4grx @brouhaha @b0rk

i++ vs ++i totally depends on what you're trying to do. If you're trying to walk through a 0-indexed array (a common use of for loops in C), preincrementing your index will give you an off-by-one error. They're not interchangeable.

@sethrichards @f4grx @b0rk I disagree. When the increment is a standalone expression, not a subexpression, they are 100% identical.
for (i= 0; i < limit; i++)
has exactly the same semantics as
for (i= 0; i < limit; ++i)
which is the case I was questioning.

Your statement is correct when the increment is a subexpression, so a[i++] is very different than a[++i].