Databases
StackOverflow2013
Postsdbo
PODoes "if ([bool] == true)" require one more step than "if ([bool])"?
 

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals
  1. PODoes "if ([bool] == true)" require one more step than "if ([bool])"?
    primarykey
    data
    text
    <p>This is a purely pedantic question, to sate my own curiosity.</p> <p>I tend to go with the latter option in the question (so: <code>if (boolCheck) { ... }</code>), while a coworker always writes the former (<code>if (boolCheck == true) { ... }</code>). I always kind of teased him about it, and he always explained it as an old habit from when he was first starting programming.</p> <p>But it just occurred to me today that actually writing out the whole <code>== true</code> part may in fact require an additional step for processing, since any expression with a <code>==</code> operator gets evaluated to a Boolean value. Is this true?</p> <p>In other words, as I understand it, the option <strong>without</strong> the == true line could be loosely described as follows:</p> <ol> <li>Check X</li> </ol> <p>While the option <strong>with</strong> the == true line would be more like:</p> <ol> <li>Let Y be true if X is true, otherwise false</li> <li>Check Y</li> </ol> <p>Am I correct? Or perhaps any normal compiler/interpreter will do away with this difference? Or am I overlooking something, and there's really no difference at all?</p> <p>Obviously, there will be no difference in terms of actual observed performance. Like I said, I'm just curious.</p> <p><strong>EDIT:</strong> Thanks to everyone who actually posted compiled results to illustrate whether the steps were different between the two approaches. (It seems, most of the time, they were, albeit only slightly.)</p> <p>I just want to reiterate that I was <em>not</em> asking about what is the "right" approach. I understand that many people favor one over the other. I also understand that, logically, the two are identical. I was just curious if the actual operations being performed by the CPU are <strong>exactly the same</strong> for both methods; as it turns out, much of the time (obviously it depends on language, compiler, etc.), they are not.</p>
    singulars
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PTQuestion
    1. USJoel Coehoorn
    1. USDan Tao
    plurals
    1. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    2. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    1. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    2. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    3. PL
      singulars
      1. LTLinked
    1. This table or related slice is empty.
    1. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    2. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    3. PO
      singulars
      1. PTAnswer
    1. VO
      singulars
      1. PODoes "if ([bool] == true)" require one more step than "if ([bool])"?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    2. VO
      singulars
      1. PODoes "if ([bool] == true)" require one more step than "if ([bool])"?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    3. VO
      singulars
      1. PODoes "if ([bool] == true)" require one more step than "if ([bool])"?
      1. This table or related slice is empty.
      1. VTUpMod
    1. COIt depends on the language. In some languages, the two conditions are not actually the same. For example, in C (with #define true 1), "if(3) return;" returns, but "if(3 == true) return:" does not.
      singulars
      1. PODoes "if ([bool] == true)" require one more step than "if ([bool])"?
      1. USUncleO
    2. COOn the other hand, with #define false 0, "boolCheck != false" and "boolCheck" have the same effect as conditions.
      singulars
      1. PODoes "if ([bool] == true)" require one more step than "if ([bool])"?
      1. USUncleO
    3. CO@uncleo: That is why TRUE is not defined as 1. It is defined as (!FALSE).
      singulars
      1. PODoes "if ([bool] == true)" require one more step than "if ([bool])"?
      1. USMartin York
 

Querying!

 
Guidance
A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.

SQuiL has stopped working due to an internal error.

If you are curious you may find further information in the browser console, which is accessible through the devtools (F12).

Reload