Having trouble with variable incrementation (+1)

[mild tundra]

<@&987246399047479336> please have a look, thanks.

[mild tundra]

While you are waiting for getting help, here are some tips to improve your experience:

Code is much easier to read if posted with syntax highlighting and proper formatting.

If nobody is calling back, that usually means that your question was not well asked and hence nobody feels confident enough answering. Try to use your time to elaborate, provide details, context, more code, examples and maybe some screenshots. With enough info, someone knows the answer for sure.

Don't forget to close your thread using the command </help-thread close:1027500463647621170> when your question has been answered, thanks.

[pastel glen]

i suspect u recreate the variable each time per guess

unfortunately i can only guess, since u didnt share all the code

but essentially u have to create ur variable beforehand

so that it stays alive

if u share the full code, we can give u a concrete suggestion

by the way, dont abbreviate variable names tot is bad. write it out

totalGuesses, better

🙂

[ashen kettle]

ooh ok Ill try what you said out, thanks so much. Ill send screenshots of the full code I currently have in a sec

Alright so the first image is the gui that shows up (this along with the guessing its self runs and works completely fine).

The second image is the full code that makes all the guessing work. In my mind, increasing totalGuesses+1 each time the guess button is pressed should work yet it still seems to just set the total to 1 indefinitely; even when higher and lower guesses are made.
(also thanks so much for taking the time to help me out, I appreciate it so much 👍 )

if nothing here works I think second best choice would maybe to create a while loop? Although I'd have to think about how I'd do that more.

Im pretty sure I can get it working with if/else statements though

I just moved from python so Im still working out the kinks of everything

[acoustic forum]

i think it's because while you press the button you will call 'guessBtnActionPerformed' in which you will declare totalGuesses int. As you can notice - it is always set to 0 while calling the method

that's why it always shows 1

[ashen kettle]

oh so it resets every time the button is pressed?

wait no because then the random variable would change each time

[acoustic forum]

from this snippet i assume that is what is happening

[ashen kettle]

I suppose that could be happening but I think if that was the case the guessing wouldn't work either

I can see if I can declare the variable outside the button action

IT WORKS

MY ACTUAL SAVIOUR

TYSM

[acoustic forum]

congrats!

[ashen kettle]

this is what I ended up with! I just declared it outside and then put an extra line at the bottom of the if statement

totalGuesses = totalGuesses+1;

Omg thank you

alr ill close this off now

[tight epoch]

If you want
You can put totalGuesses = totalGuesses + 1 before totalGuess.setText(...) so you don't have to do the unnecessary addition

Also you can use totalGuesses += 1 instead of totalGuesses = totalGuesses + 1 because it feels cleaner

[late dock]

or just totalGuesses++

[sand plover]

Or ++totalGuesses as it's 4.41 ns faster

[late dock]

surely isn't with nowadays compilers

i'd assume that both n = n + 1 and n++ is optimized to ++n

tested just in case, the bytecode between identical n++ and ++n is identical

n = n + 1 however produces different bytecode

[high lance]

no

but with latest cpus it barely makes any diff

[pastel glen]

actually, i benchmarked all flavors of increment in jmh

there is no measurable difference

[high lance]

coz ur cpu too good

use a 2 decades old cpu might get few ns diff then

[coral terrace]

@pastel glen @high lance
All i++, i++, i += 1 compiles to

iinc          1, 1

i = i + 1 compiles to

iload_1       
iconst_1      
iadd          
istore_1 

(Assuming local variable 1 is i, and all 4 expressions are a statement, so the return value isn't used)

[pastel glen]

and i have jmh benchmark for around 10 different kind of increments

with no measurable difference

i suppose we have had that discussion a year before already or so, and then I created it

[coral terrace]

yes there is no difference in time of time

but I just wanted to point out that specifically i++, i++, i += 1 are literally the same code

[sand plover]

I just saw some benchmarking a while back, maybe it was for c idk that said ++i was faster.
My original message was just a satirical joke in case yall didn't get it

[pastel glen]

that has been the case for old c compilers, yes. (its not the case anymore though)

which is why many c devs have the habit of using ++i in loops over i++

[sand plover]

That makes sense

The point was that i++ requires the old value of i to be stored in a placeholder to use in an expression which is slightly slower

But modern compilers optimize it