## Fast distance calculation between geo-coordinates

I see this in libraries and it makes my skin crawl: the Great-Circle distance calculation (or GCDC). It’s precise, but it’s slow. It’s slow when you have to do an O(n!) or even O(n log n) operation to sort or cluster points. And its precision is its downfall:

This is too much work for what we need: a good approximation of distance between two points.

Here is a faster way that’s close enough:

//Supposing:

//lat1 and lon1 as coordinates of position 1;
//lat2 and lon2 as coordinates of position 2;

long meridional_circ = 40007860; // meters
double lat_degree_distance = meridional_circ / 360; // average length of one degree of latitude, or about 111133 meters.
long equatorial_circ = 40075017; // meters
double lon_degree_distance = equatorial_circ / 360; // average length of one degree of longitude AT THE EQUATOR, or about 111319 meters.

double lat_distance = abs(lat1 – lat2) * lat_degree_distance;
double lon_distance = abs(lon1 – lon2) * lon_degree_distance * Math.cos(Math.PI * ((lat1 + lat2)/2) / 180);

double distance = Math.sqrt(lat_distance * lat_distance + lon_distance * lon_distance);

Declare the constants as constants, and you’re good to go.  Read more…

Categories: Optimization, Programming Tags:

## Optimization series: steps 0 and 1

I will be doing a series of posts on optimization, namely software optimization for speed, in the coming weeks and months. Optimization is by far my favourite thing in programming. To me, there’s nothing quite like taking code that works and making it code that works faster. I don’t get to do it as often as I’d like, and the same will probably go for you, whether you want to or not, but I will share what knowledge I’ve garnered over the years doing this.

# Step 0: Pre-preparation

(Of course this is 0-indexed…) The very first step, and please pay attention, is that YOU MUST NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE, BEGIN WITH THE OPTIMIZATION. That is: FIX THE BUGS FIRST. This is critical, optimization is very often a feature, or at the very least a defect correction, but more often than not an improvement. If you speed up code that doesn’t work, it will only crash faster. There is such a thing as preemptive optimization which can lead to more trouble than worth it down the road, and it’s a documented pitfall. Consider yourself warned.

(It goes without saying that standard programming practices must be applied, such as having backups and using a form of version control for your code. You must set that up if it’s not, for your own sanity as well as for the needs of the work ahead.)

# Step 1: Preparation

With a stable codebase and no (known) bugs, we can begin. Optimization (and this is one of the reasons that makes it so attractive to me) is like experimental science. In science experiments, there is a very important notion that applies here. Scientists call it control. For example, for pharmaceuticals, there is usually a “control group” which is given a pill that does nothing, a placebo, along with other groups which will be given the actual drugs being tested. In the end, every subject took “a pill”, and that’s the scientist’s basis for analysis and comparison. This is also taught in high school science: don’t contaminate your samples, which is another way to say “don’t introduce unknowns.” It’s the same thing with software, but we’ll usually talk about benchmarking.

What you need to do is have all the conditions required in order to run your benchmark, in such a way that you can get back to it easily. That could mean working with backup databases, test files, virtual machines with snapshots, etc. If your optimization requires something more “exotic”, say simulating a faint wifi signal, near capacity memory or CPU usage, etc, you need to be able to bring up those same conditions, so that when you test your changes, you’re actually only testing your changes. In all cases, a reference base is needed, an initial state of input. So your first step (well, after fixing the bugs), is to BE ABLE TO EASILY GO BACK TO YOUR BENCHMARK FOR REFERENCE AND COMPARISON. This also implies being able to compare the end result, not just for speed but for accuracy. Because optimization is about finding a quicker route from point A to point B, not ending up at point C.

Got that? Don’t come back until you have that.

Categories: Optimization, Programming

## Rounding in .NET: A fair warning

Everybody uses the same rounding they learned in school. Only Siths deal in absolutes, as they say, but this is really really basic: .0, .1, .2, .3, .4 round down, and .5, .6, .7, .8, .9 round up. We’ve all learned this in school.

.NET Framework designers have taken it upon themselves to make fools of us all by defaulting the rounding algorithm (used by `Math.Round`) to something called “Banker’s rounding.” It behaves the same, except for .5, which will round to the nearest even integer. 2.5 rounds down to 2, 3.5 rounds up to 4. This was done so as to distribute .5 evenly up or down. Or a better explanation might be…

Categories: Basics, Programming Tags:

## Counting objects

This is a variation on the classic C++ approach, adapted to C#. While .NET has its Garbage Collector which takes care of all objects you don’t need, at some point one might need to track how many instances of an object were created, or are active.

```public class SomeClass
{
public static int ObjectsCreatedCount = 0;
public static int ObjectsActiveCount = 0;
public SomeClass()
{
ObjectsCreatedCount++;
ObjectsActiveCount++;
}
~SomeClass()
{
ObjectsActiveCount--;
}
}
```

That way, you can use SomeClass.ObjectsCreatedCount to know how many objects were created, and SomeClass.ObjectsActiveCount to know how many objects are still around at any point.

Another thing of note: C# classes do have destructors, contrary to popular belief. It has no delete keyword because of the Garbage Collector, and there’s little management to do for memory, but there’s still a possibility of using a destructor.

Categories: Basics, Programming Tags:

## Worst way to do a sum

I’m dealing with some seriously bad code. It’s sort of like this.

Suppose you need to add two integers in C:

```    int sum(int x, int y)
{
return x+y;
}
```

Let’s not even consider nastiness like int limits, just a plain sum that works. That above is the sane way. That’s how you work. You do a single, tiny function that does a single job well.

This is the legacy I’m dealing with:

```    //Declared globally
int sum1 = /* a value */;
int sum2 = /* another value */;
int sum; /* the result */
sumx(); /* execution */
//...
void sumx()
{
sum = sum1+sum2;
}
```

Technically, it works. Same result. What’s the difference? Maintainability.

Categories: Basics, Programming Tags:

## The one rule for software maintenance

Code which cannot be maintained might as well just not work or even exist.

– Thierry Eude, Ph. D., Ing. jr., Université Laval

## Cast away

My C++ class is done, and I feel like I learned some tiny things here and there, mostly refresher stuff, but not a lot of meat to sink my teeth into.

So, to learn more, I turned to Stack Overflow, and while wanting to be helpful, got served. It’s alright, it’s cool, I learned I had still lots to learn. And that’s why I will talk about casting.

Usually, in a function, you should get your types right, and avoid wasteful casting. That’s true. Compilers throw warnings at you if you don’t respect types, and that’s usually where you need to be explicit about what you mean. C has the classic cast, what most call the C-style cast:

```    int i = 35;
float f = (float)i;
```

C++ offers a lot more tools. Most of the time, we’re casting to another type to adapt to a situation, a function, etc. C++ allows us to be more explicit, which is good, because you’re making your meaning clear to future maintainers of your code (and that can be yourself). Never neglect the power of explicit code. Don’t just cast to make it work (or not send a warning), cast and be clear about your intentions.

These are called casting operators, and they go as follows.

First, const_cast.

const_cast exists to deal with whether a variable or parameter is constant or not. Sometimes, you need to get rid of “const” for just a bit. Casting it C-style works, but the C++ way is crystal:

```void nonconstfunc(int *i);

void constfunc(const int *i)
{
nonconstfunc(i); //error, this will not compile
int* i2 = const_cast<int*>(i); // but convert it to a non-const int pointer
nonconstfunc(i2); //and use the non-const copy instead!
}
```

Next is reinterpret_cast.

reinterpret_cast does a very specific job: it can cast a pointer to an integral type and back. So if you have a pointer and you want to print its address, say, you can use this:

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