any1 know a more elegant way to prevent the trailing delay? ```repeat(10) { foo() delay(500)...

# getting-started

[LastExceed]

any1 know a more elegant way to prevent the trailing delay?

repeat(10) {
    foo()
    delay(500) //problem: causes trailing delay
}

i could of course do this:

foo()
repeat(10) {
    delay(500)
    foo()
}

but it looks kinda ugly to me

[phldavies]

repeat(10) {
    if (it > 0) delay(500)
    foo()
}

should do the trick

[LastExceed]

nice!

[Michael de Kaste]

I kinda prefer the original solution because you know when exactly you expect the delay not to show up. Now you are giving your program extra computational time, even though you knew when exactly it would happen.

Granted, an if check is nothing 😛

[LastExceed]

that kinda reminds me of someone telling me to use inline functions whereever possible for performance gains. even intellij tells you to stop because of how insignificant the difference is

[LastExceed]

at some point you trade performance for convenience. thats also why we aren't programming in ASM anymore

[Klitos Kyriacou]

A perverted way (for amusement only): Array(10) { foo() }.joinToString(delay(500).let {""})

[LastExceed]

that wont work. the array will be fully initialized first, joinToString is called afterwards

[LastExceed]

the separater is evaluated once in the beginning

[ephemient]

if you wanted to go down that road,

flow { repeat(10) { emit(foo()) } }
    .fold(false) { doDelay, _ ->
        if (doDelay) delay(100)
        true
    }

(the slightly-more natural

sequence { repeat(10) { yield(foo()) } }
    .zipWithNext { _, _ -> delay(100) }
    .toList()

doesn't work with suspend functions)

[ephemient]

I'm not recommending that, btw ;)

[LastExceed]

this is so cursed, i love it

[Michael de Kaste]

@LastExceed
I agree with performance vs convenience, but in this case we are talking about practically the same lines of code. There's no convenience loss here, just a perception of beauty 😉