Elegance vs. Performance

So /prog/, what would you choose between these two snippets of C code...


int *arr[3];
arr[0] = 1;
arr[1] = 2;
arr[2] = 3;

or...


int i;
int *arr[3];
for (i = 0; i < 3; i++)
  arr[i] = i+1;

The second one is more elegant, but requires more operations.

>>59
"Right, and my C code is outside the realm of standard Python.  What kind of retard consults the standard of the wrong language and whines that the language in question doesn't conform to it? "

The original code was in C, not assembler you halfwit. You started to rattle about shit that doesn't fall within the realm of standard C. I just pointed out that your shit assembler code wasn't covered in any of the known C standards. I never once mentioned any kind of assembler standard. You did. I suspect you did this because you are a mental retard.

Again, you are stupid. And again, go back to playing with your barbie dolls. I'm sure barbie will believe your misconceptions about assembler and its relation to C.

>>59
Or better yet you fucking mental retard, instead of acting like some jackass bitch in heat when someone calls you out like the dumbass nigger that you are, why don't you instead take the time to learn how to write a C compiler and linker.

I'm pretty sure that this excercise would clear about your gross misconceptions about C, assembler, and how they are related to each other.

*would clear up*