Comment on Bell Labs 'Unix' Tape from 1974 Successfully Dumped to a Tarball

main(argc, argv)
int argc;
char *argv[];
{
	int i;

	argc--;
	for(i=1; i<=argc; i++)
		printf("%s%c", argv[i], i==argc? '\n': ' ');
}

• ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

  Bloat, they wasted an extra integer operation with argc–.

  source

  • xthexder@l.sw0.com ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    I think it’s actually quite elegant. No matter what it has to skip over argument 0 which will be the executable name echo.
    If the subtraction was removed and the loop changed to <, it would then need to do an addition or subtraction inside the loop to check if it’s the last argument.

    source

    • palordrolap@fedia.io ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      The real question might be whether the compiler was smart enough to change var++ and var-- into ++var and --var when the initial values aren't needed.

      As compiler optimisations go, it's a fairly obvious one, but it was 1974 and putting checks like that in the compiler would increase its size and slow it down when both space and time were at a premium.

      source

      • xthexder@l.sw0.com ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        Well, good news, the source code is right there. Someone can go check (it probably won’t be me)

        source
      • a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world ⁨11⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        I was going to guess the same regarding the time period.

        source
    • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Or they just drop the =

      source