1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:00,260

2
00:00:00,260 --> 00:00:02,830
>> SPEAKER 1: It turns out there's still
an opportunity to improve this

3
00:00:02,830 --> 00:00:04,240
program's design.

4
00:00:04,240 --> 00:00:08,860
Notice in my for loop that on each
iteration, I'm checking that i is less

5
00:00:08,860 --> 00:00:10,520
than the string length of s.

6
00:00:10,520 --> 00:00:13,920
But the string length of s is always
going to be the same, because s itself

7
00:00:13,920 --> 00:00:15,010
is not changing.

8
00:00:15,010 --> 00:00:18,630
And yet, every time through this loop
I'm checking the string length of s,

9
00:00:18,630 --> 00:00:21,810
the string length of s, the string
length of s, which is just silly.

10
00:00:21,810 --> 00:00:24,580
Because surely it must take some
amount of time to figure out a

11
00:00:24,580 --> 00:00:25,450
string's length.

12
00:00:25,450 --> 00:00:28,680
And I'm wasting that time by asking
the same question again and again.

13
00:00:28,680 --> 00:00:32,920
>> Well, it turns out we can improve this
by declaring, say, a second variable

14
00:00:32,920 --> 00:00:34,470
inside of my for loop.

15
00:00:34,470 --> 00:00:38,240
Let's call it n-- and separate it
from i, with a comma like this--

16
00:00:38,240 --> 00:00:42,000
and set n equal to the
string length of s.

17
00:00:42,000 --> 00:00:42,990
Semicolon.

18
00:00:42,990 --> 00:00:46,350
And now, let's change my condition to
not compare i against the string

19
00:00:46,350 --> 00:00:49,560
length of s per se, but
instead against n.

20
00:00:49,560 --> 00:00:52,360
In this way, we initialize n
to the string length of s.

21
00:00:52,360 --> 00:00:57,210
But on each iteration of my loop, I'll
instead be checking i against n.

22
00:00:57,210 --> 00:00:59,628