On Sun, 5 Mar 2006 03:50:47 -0300, Flávio Etrusco
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I guess it's not so hugely useful or else someone would have
contributed it already. This is much more important in Java because
the String objects are constant/immutable and thus can't be
This is very true I have never
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, L505 wrote:
for very large strings that
constantly change via concatenations. Instead of reserving memory for the
ansistring to whatever amount you request, the stringbuffer type would
reserve
extra memory for you in a specifyable increment (256K, 128K, 20K,
I guess it's not so hugely useful or else someone would have
contributed it already.
Mmm... if that was the case I wouldn't be programming because everyone has
already implemented what I'm trying to program :-)
Seriously though - it would mean less calls to SetLength when doing big
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, L505 wrote:
I guess it's not so hugely useful or else someone would have
contributed it already.
Mmm... if that was the case I wouldn't be programming because everyone has
already implemented what I'm trying to program :-)
Seriously though - it would
But I mean if you are doing things at different times in the program:
for i := 1 to 1000
DoSomestuff
s:= string + string;
DoOtherStuff
s:= string + string;
in other words.. not one big concatenation at once such as:
string.concatenate(string1, string2, string3,
On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, L505 wrote:
But I mean if you are doing things at different times in the program:
for i := 1 to 1000
DoSomestuff
s:= string + string;
DoOtherStuff
s:= string + string;
in other words.. not one big concatenation at once such as:
Sl:=TStringList.Create;
for i := 1 to 1000 do
begin
DoSomestuff;
SL.Add(SomeString);
DoOtherStuff;
SL.Add(SomeOtherString);
end;
Result:=SL.Concatenate; // This can be optimized to 1 getmem call.
Michael.
I suppose this is sort of like SetTextBuff
Matt Henley wrote:
I belong to a mailing list for a defunt open source chemical process
simulator (Sim42). Members of the list are now showing interest in
restarting the effort. It was originally written in python which
cause some speed issues. Several of the list members (including me)
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006, Uwe Grauer wrote:
Matt Henley wrote:
I belong to a mailing list for a defunt open source chemical process
simulator (Sim42). Members of the list are now showing interest in
restarting the effort. It was originally written in python which
cause some speed issues.
python is a very nice language.
Why don't you just write the speed critical parts in C or C++.
That's how everyone does it in python.
Showing only that python isn't up to the task.
Just like all these other interpreted languages: .NET, Java...
It's cheating, and they all do it:
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 04.03.2006, 15:41 +0200 schrieb A.J. Venter:
python is a very nice language.
Why don't you just write the speed critical parts in C or C++.
That's how everyone does it in python.
Showing only that python isn't up to the task.
Actually showing that one should
No, if you need pointer _arithmetic_ you are doing it wrong or using a
language that is assembly in disguise. Pointers itself are fine and
dandy, but don't *(x + 3 * i + 2) = *(y - 3);. Would you talk like that
to a human? No? Why talk like that to a computer then? It's just a sign
that
Object Pascal is a long way from Wirth's pascal or even
from turbo pascal. People who say it is a backward language
or dead language don't know object pascal, teach C++, and think
pascal is algol.
The mass of interpreted languages out do indeed have
interesting features. Very nice features.
less power. It's always like that. The language of a human (and maths)
is just so much more advanced than any computer language, it depresses
me at times. (Assembly language is so primitive that we all stopped
talking it by now, except when we absolutely must do it. But it sure is
flexible,
Hi,
Am Samstag, den 04.03.2006, 19:44 +0200 schrieb A.J. Venter:
less power. It's always like that. The language of a human (and maths)
is just so much more advanced than any computer language, it depresses
me at times. (Assembly language is so primitive that we all stopped
talking it by
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 08:41:53 -0800, Dale Welch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But everyone always knew java was slow. It wasn't meant
to be able to be your primary language for large projects.
This is where I have do disagree, having used Java. Example: I wrote
a piece of linguistic software in
Maybe a StringBuffer type is needed for pascal
Do you mean in pascal or for FreePascal? ;-)
for very large strings that
constantly change via concatenations. Instead of reserving memory for the
ansistring to whatever amount you request, the stringbuffer type would reserve
extra memory for
On 3/3/06, Matt Henley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My personal objective is not just to put out a simulator, but a fast
and efficient simulator. Furthermore, personally, I do not consider a
program portable if it is written in a language which very few can
understand.
Althought a lot less
I belong to a mailing list for a defunt open source chemical process
simulator (Sim42). Members of the list are now showing interest in
restarting the effort. It was originally written in python which
cause some speed issues. Several of the list members (including me)
suggested freepascal and
19 matches
Mail list logo
