这是一位高级经理在面试时问的问题。
哪个更快?
while(1) {
// Some code
}
or
while(2) {
//Some code
}
我说过两者具有相同的执行速度，因为while中的表达式最终应求值为true或false。在这种情况下，两者都求值为true，并且while条件中没有额外的条件指令。因此，两者将具有相同的执行速度，我更喜欢while(1)。
但面试官自信地说: “检查你的基本知识。While(1)比While(2)快。” (他不是在试探我的信心)
这是真的吗?
请参见:“for(;;)”是否比“while (TRUE)”快?如果不是，人们为什么要使用它?
当前回答
我认为线索可以从“高级经理的询问”中找到。这个人显然在成为经理后就停止了编程，然后他/她花了几年时间才成为高级经理。从未失去对编程的兴趣，但从那以后再也没有写过一行字。所以他提到的并不是“任何一个像样的编译器”，而是“这个人在二三十年前合作过的编译器”。
At that time, programmers spent a considerable percentage of their time trying out various methods for making their code faster and more efficient as CPU time of 'the central minicomputer' was so valueable. As did people writing compilers. I'm guessing that the one-and-only compiler his company made available at that time optimized on the basis of 'frequently encountered statements that can be optimized' and took a bit of a shortcut when encountering a while(1) and evaluated everything else, including a while(2). Having had such an experience could explain his position and his confidence in it.
让你被录用的最好方法可能是，在你顺利地引导他进入下一个面试主题之前，让高级经理忘乎所以地给你讲2-3分钟“编程的美好时光”。(好的时机在这里很重要——太快你会打断故事——太慢你会被贴上焦点不集中的标签)。一定要在面试结束时告诉他，你对这个话题非常感兴趣。
其他回答
You should have asked him how did he reached to that conclusion. Under any decent compiler out there, the two compile to the same asm instructions. So, he should have told you the compiler as well to start off. And even so, you would have to know the compiler and platform very well to even make a theoretical educated guess. And in the end, it doesn't really matter in practice, since there are other external factors like memory fragmentation or system load that will influence the loop more than this detail.
看到这么多人深入研究这个问题，正好说明了为什么这可以很好地作为一个测试，看看您想要多快地进行微优化。
我的答案是;这并不重要，我更关注我们正在解决的业务问题。毕竟，这就是我的工作。
此外，我会选择while(1){}，因为它更常见，其他队友不需要花时间去弄清楚为什么有人会选择比1更高的数字。
现在去写一些代码。: -)
我曾经用C语言和汇编代码编写程序，那时候这类废话可能会有很大不同。当它确实起作用时，我们在汇编中写了出来。
如果我被问到这个问题，我会重复唐纳德·克努特1974年关于过早优化的名言，如果面试官没有笑，我就会走开，然后继续前进。
当然，我不知道这位经理的真实意图，但我提出了一个完全不同的观点:当一个团队雇佣一个新成员时，了解他如何应对冲突情况是很有用的。
他们让你陷入冲突。如果这是真的，他们很聪明，这个问题也很好。对于某些行业，比如银行业，将你的问题发布到Stack Overflow可能会成为被拒绝的理由。
但我当然不知道，我只是提出一个选择。
是的，对于人类来说，while(1)比while(2)快得多!如果我在一个不熟悉的代码库中看到while(1)，我立即知道作者的意图，我的眼球可以继续看下一行。
If I see while(2), I'll probably halt in my tracks and try to figure out why the author didn't write while(1). Did the author's finger slip on the keyboard? Do the maintainers of this codebase use while(n) as an obscure commenting mechanism to make loops look different? Is it a crude workaround for a spurious warning in some broken static analysis tool? Or is this a clue that I'm reading generated code? Is it a bug resulting from an ill-advised find-and-replace-all, or a bad merge, or a cosmic ray? Maybe this line of code is supposed to do something dramatically different. Maybe it was supposed to read while(w) or while(x2). I'd better find the author in the file's history and send them a "WTF" email... and now I've broken my mental context. The while(2) might consume several minutes of my time, when while(1) would have taken a fraction of a second!
我有点夸张，但也只是一点点。代码的可读性非常重要。这一点在面试中很值得一提!
