Originally Posted by DaWei

++i, with i as an integer, is no more (and no less) efficient than i++. The preincrement operator may be more efficient when applied to an object, depending strictly upon the characteristics of the object. It's one of those issues that people speak strongly about because they heard it somewhere, and that's good enough for them.

Originally Posted by Practical C Programming (Chapter 5, page 80-81, third edition)

++x or x++
The two forms of the increment operator are called the prefix form (++x) and the postfix form (x++). Which form should you use? Actually in C your choice doesn't matter. However, if you use C++ with its overloadable operators, the prefix version (++x) is more efficient.* So, to develop good habits for learning C++, use the prefix form.*

* For details, see the book Practical C++ Programming (O'Reilly & Associates).
*Consider the irony of a language with its name in postfix form (C++) working more efficiently with prefix forms of the increment and decrement operators. Maybe the name should be ++C.

Originally Posted by DaWei

That's essentially the point made in the thread -- incrementing atomic thangys versus objects (overloading) and imbuing atomic incrementation order with an importance it doesn't have because of the differences possible for non-atomic types. Am I missing another point in your post?