Dragonion

As for the beginning I guess you could add a few discrete effects here and there although I personally think it sounds pretty good with a simple synth and a few echoing "blobs". As for the kick I guess it's a matter of either boosting the lower freqs a bit with some EQ, finding another sample/VST/RTAS, or perhaps adding an emphasizing bass drum wherever you need some additional punch. The "haha"-break sounds fine imo and I'm sure you can fix the supposed emptiness with some good mastering software like iZotope Ozone 5. That said, I think it's a good idea to let it rest for some days. I know from my own experience that working on the same track too many days in a row tends to kill the enthusiasm.

I don't know how helpful this is but the mix sounds fine in a regular Razer headset. Good and full atmosphere. The composition is also good although it really isn't a genre I usually listen to. Very creative with all the mouth-generated sounds.

However, in referrencing the loop is translated because two external functions (the int constructor and -destructor) are called in each iteration.

The int constructor and destructor are trivial and not present in the compiler's output. The two function calls you see are the memory allocation and deallocation.

True. But for the sake of simplicity I took the liberty of using the words "constructor" and "destructor" as aliases for the entire memory allocation/de-allocation processes they initiate when you use them.

Hello all.

I just ran the following two functions 100 times each ...

When using MSVC your code is translated like this:
[source lang="plain"]?passing@@YAXH@Z (void __cdecl passing(int)): 00000000: C3 ret?referrencing@@YAXPAH@Z (void __cdecl referrencing(int *)): 00000010: 56 push esi 00000011: BE 40 42 0F 00 mov esi,0F4240h 00000016: 6A 04 push 4 00000018: E8 00 00 00 00 call ??2@YAPAXI@Z 0000001D: 50 push eax 0000001E: E8 00 00 00 00 call ??3@YAXPAX@Z 00000023: 83 C4 08 add esp,8 00000026: 4E dec esi 00000027: 75 ED jne 00000016 00000029: 5E pop esi 0000002A: C3 ret[/source]
As you can see, the first function, passing, is reduced to a single ret instruction making it equivalent to this one:
[source lang="cpp"]void passing(int j ){}[/source]
In other words, through optimization algorithms the comiler "concludes" (notice the qutation marks because we a talking about a piece of software) that the loop is redundant and removes it entirely from the function body. However, in referrencing the loop is translated because two external functions (the int constructor and -destructor) are called in each iteration. And even though it may seem like this could be optimized out of the loop as well, as soon as you invoke an external function things change quite significantly from a complier's "point of view" because the function's implementation isn't part of your code and is stored in binary form in some library (or object) file on your hard-drive.

I hope this answers your question.