send help.

>using loopcounter to iterate through an array
nigga that's why the letter i was invented

>>61726244
arrays should only be referenced using numbered indexes. Unless you want to have many headache

>>61726225
>academics
> web developers

two sides of the same coin, really

>not scoping your loop counter
how terrifying

>>61726225
>centigrade
is this American for Celsius?

>>61726272
have you read K&R?

>>61727087
Centigrade = degrees Celsius

Centi = 100, grade = scale

>>61727553
yea?
But Fahrenheit doesn't break down to idiot scale, but rather stems from the guy who made it.

Why not just call it Celsius and Fahrenheit?

File: death to all cia niggers.png (351KB, 500x335px) Image search: [Google]

351KB, 500x335px

>>61726896
Terry-fying*

>>61726225
The biggest problem with this is that if you change the size of your arrays you need to then change the number of times your loops iterate.

It is a terrible coding foundation. Like, literally don't even do this. Ever. It's not faster than using some iterator which will go through an array of N length and it is just not useful. All that will happen is you will use it when you shouldn't and get bad output.

>>61727763
Reminder if loop iteration size isn't known at compile time your compiler will not unwrap your loop for optimal performance

>>61727784
Still better than having it spit out incorrect data or an exception because you're trying to iterate an array that isn't large enough or not iterate it enough.

File: ugh.jpg (31KB, 460x460px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 460x460px

>>61726896
>he doesn't know var is function scoped

>>61727784
>unwrap your loop
You forgot that cache is a thing, and keeping your code small is more beneficial.

Also, this is cold code where you'll shave off every CPU cycle you can.

>>61730501
Even in a for condition? Fucking hell.

>>61730634
You're right, that's why inlining is always slower than branching.

> document.write