Hi Henning,
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote on Tuesday, September 06, 2005 9:30 AM:
> "James Carman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> I would say that this is something that would be very useful. We did
>> something similar in HiveMind. I can imagine an implementation like:
>
> I always wondered over the obsession with startsWith() and
> endsWith() in string-related commons code. These operations
> are hugely expensive, especially with long strings to check!
>
> They are implemented using a loop and char compares. I very
> much prefer using charAt and length() for this; both are
> constant time operations.
[snip]
>
> while(namelen > 2
> && className.charAt(nameLen - 2) == '['
> && className.charAt(nameLen - 1) == ']')
> { actualNameBuffer.append('[');
> nameLen -= 2;
> foundArray = true;
> }
[snip]
Well, looking into the JDK source I see no real advantage of not using
endsWith. x.endsWith("[]") will exactly do 2 character compares (if the string
matches), as well as your code above. And it only has one bounds check,
compared to 2 in your example (3 counting "nameLen>2"). endsWith has one
indirect call more though. So why do you think, that endsWidth is not time
constant?
- Jörg
(who is not willing to accept myths just by word)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
