I suppose your test results mean, for instance, that StringBuffer is 2.9 times
faster than HyperString... not 2.9 times faster than built-in methods, correct?
Jeff Greenberg
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tuomas Huhtanen wrote:
> Good work with the StringObject / HyperString. I couldn't keep my hands out
> of this one, though, so I tried to improve the HyperString a bit. As I am a
> hardcore java programmer, the final output of my work looks like:
>
> function StringBuffer(){}
> StringBuffer.prototype = new Array(0);
> StringBuffer.prototype.append = function(str){
> this[this.length] = str;
> }
> StringBuffer.prototype.toString=function(){
> return this.join('');
> }
>
> I ran the same tests that can be found form
> http://www24.brinkster.com/dyntools/samples/hyperstring.html
> with several different browsers and the results are:
>
> IE5.5 StringBuffer 2.9 times faster.
> NS4.72 Processing takes about the same.
> Opera 5 StringBuffer 1.2 times faster.
>
> Other advantage is that the methods of Array are directly usable on
> StringBuffer. So please, use it if you feel like it.
>
> --
> th
>
> > Hello everyone,
> >
> > Some time ago I had created a string handling library
> > for my vb projects, which would speed up string
> > concatenations. When I started programming in
> > javascript I've realized that there was a need for
> > such a library since javascript had the same problem
> > as VB.
> >
> > StringObject is a very simple javascript object that
> > can in cases where you might need to do string
> > concatenations:
> >
> > StringObject=function(){}
> > StringObject.prototype.db=[];
> > StringObject.prototype.add=function(src){
> > this.db[this.db.length]=src;
> > }
> > StringObject.prototype.toString=function(delim){
> > return this.db.join(delim||'');
> > }
> > StringObject.prototype.flush=function(){
> > this.db=[];
> > }
> > StringObject.prototype.indexOf=function(q){
> > return this.db.join('').indexOf(q)
> > }
> >
> >
> > Here's an example:
> >
> >
> > // #1: Conventional method
> > var src='',din=new Date()
> > for (var i=0;i<2000;i++){
> > d=" svcsvadvnvdv gdg rgr gr gr grgrg <br>"
> > src+=d
> > }
> > //src=src.indexOf("1999") // simple lookup
> > var dout=new Date()
> > alert(dout-din)
> >
> >
> >
> > // #2: With StringObject
> > var src='',din=new Date()
> > so=new StringObject()
> >
> > for (var i=0;i<2000;i++){
> > d=" svcsvadvnvdv gdg rgr gr gr grgrg <br>"
> > so.add(d)
> > }
> > src=so.toString('')
> > //src=so.indexOf("1999") // simple lookup
> > var dout=new Date()
> > alert(dout-din)
> >
> >
> > The above example (#2) when tested on a pentium 200MHz
> > was able to process over 70,000 characters in under
> > 0.03 seconds! Try doing that using the conventional
> > methods.
> >
> > I would like to proposed that such an object be added
> > to DynAPI core so that users don't have to implement
> > separate objects for their widgets or extensions. They
> > could just reference it from the core.
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Raymond
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Find a job, post your resume.
> > http://careers.yahoo.com
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Dynapi-Help mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-help
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Help mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-help
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Help mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-help
