On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, L505 wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, L505 wrote:
> >
> > > > > Widestrings need to be like that for compatibility with c and c++
> > >
> > > > Not exactly, they need to be like this because the dang MS COM.
> > > > However I can't see why is this different than the AnsiString vs
> > > > Windows PChar-based API...
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm off topic here but:
> > > I think there should be a standard reference counting mechanism (standards
> > > comittee?) between language. We have the standard ansi string header
> embedded in
> > > the ansistring but no standard reference counting mechanism. If this was
> > > the
> > > case we could share our ansi strings in DLL's with C++ and other
> > > languages.
> >
> > Ansistrings are unique to Object Pascal. The implementation of strings in
> > C++
> > is completely different.
> >
> > > However There are good reasons for using pchars especially during string
> > > concatenations - ansistrings are dead slow when you are making tons of
> > > small
> > > concatenations.
> >
> > Sorry, but that is total nonsense. Not more than 'naive' pchars.
> >
>
> My strloadfile benchmark proves that the standard programmer using simple
> concatenations with ansistrings will have a serious speed problem in his
> application.
Exactly my point. The C programmer just already allocates enough
memory to start with. If he would do a getmem/freemem/strcat each time,
his application would be just as slow as a Pascal program.
Only as a C programmer he is used to this kind of thinking...
Pascal has the best of both worlds: you can use the 'simple' way,
for fast coding, but you can also use the 'complicated' but faster, way.
Usually I start with a 'simple' straightforward implementation
for fast coding. and when speed really becomes an issue, I change
it to the complicated way...
>
> Unless you have in depth knowledge about how every bit of ansistring memory
> management works, using getmem and freemem and pchars are simpler, no? Because
> you are not battling the automatic memory management. Now, if you are an
> expert
> in battling the automatic memory management maybe you can battle ansistrings
> enough to be almost or just as fast as pchars. Is this what we are doing in
> the
> fpc sources? I will have to look, and see.
Yes.
>
> Does it require some simple setlength calls or is it more complex than that?
Simple setlength will do.
> Does it require less or more lines of code than simply using getmem and
> freemem?
Less. The setlength takes care of it for you. That is the whole point.
> I bet you end up inserting lots more lines of code to battle the memory
> manager
> instead of just manually taking control of it yourself.
No.
The setlength also provides automatic correct terminating and so on,
plus you always have the length stored correctly. Not so with getmem/freemem.
Michael.
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
