Please reply directly to (and quote) the post that you intend to refer to instead of to the last post in the thread. I have never insinuated that any of the code you wrote is slower or faster than any of the code anyone else wrote.
BTW, your JoinArgs isn't much of a function anyway because it only wraps String.Join() which can be called directly too. On Feb 5, 9:53 pm, jay <[email protected]> wrote: > I don't see how JoinArgs that I wrote is much slower since it uses the > stack to push the arguments, and then String.Join probably just uses > StringBuilder anyways I'd assume. I simply wrote it to replace > instances where I used a ton of string concatenations using the + > (plus) operator. It makes it so I can just find and replace all > "+" (pluses) with "," (commas) and wrap the entire thing in JoinArgs > (). > > On Feb 5, 11:27 am, Cerebrus <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Everyone has expressed their opinions, maybe I should too! ;-) > > > Although I have great respect for Mahesh Chand, I think that that > > particular article is only for newbies. Using DateTime.Now().ToString > > () is hardly a good way to evaluate time elapsed. Additionally, such > > measurements should be in ticks, seconds are too large a unit to > > detect minute performance differences that only show up over hundreds > > of thousands of iterations. Thirdly, performance is usually gauged as > > an average time over a number of test repetitions. (Say, you run the > > code 20 times and calculate the average time taken) > > > Finally, I always prefer to use the StringBuilder any time I am > > concatenating more than 5 strings. When using the StringBuilder, I try > > to guess an appropriate capacity(usually half or slightly more than > > estimated total capacity) for the object and use the overload that > > accepts a starting size. For instance, > > > --- > > // "example" has 7 characters, so 7 x 20 will be 140 chars. Since this > > is a small number, I'll use 150 (round figure). > > // Now the StringBuilder will not need to double its buffer at all. > > StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder(150) > > for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++) > > { > > sb.Append("example");} > > > --- > > > Note that I am not saying that this code is noticeably faster than > > concatenating 20 instances of a string. I only intend to demonstrate > > the *best* way to use a StringBuilder. Since the default initial > > capacity is only 16, it means that the StringBuilder would have to > > reallocate buffers atleast 4 times to suffice for a 140 char capacity. > > (16+32+64+128) > > > Hope that clears up any persisting doubts. > > > -- > > Cerebrus. > > > On Feb 5, 1:19 pm, Brandon Betances <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >http://www.c-sharpcorner.com/UploadFile/mahesh/StringBuilderComp11232... > > > > It's obvious he's not concatenating more than 10 strings. The proof is in > > > the muri.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
