http://qs1969.pair.com?node_id=288175


in reply to Re^4: xml parsers: do I need one?
in thread xml parsers: do I need one?

"low level" has nothing to do w/ it. Doing things like strcmp (strncmp) isn't as efficient as java strings, since hash's comparisons MAY be faster.

Try doing a strncmp of say, two identical 10k byte strings, but when you do a.equals(b), where a,b are strings, then doing equals() should be faster, since the hash values are calculated and compared, using specific algorithms that are prolly faster in the long term.

---
Play that funky music white boy..

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^6: xml parsers: do I need one?
by Aristotle (Chancellor) on Sep 02, 2003 at 02:12 UTC
    What does that have to do with anything? You can write a string hashing function in C too (and I know which one I'll bet my money on). And how does this apply to writing an XML parser?

    Makeshifts last the longest.

[reply]
      'cause XML is string parsing. Saying that java's XML is probably slow is rather unfair, and less probable for doing string manips are easily optimized in java as it is in one place... the jvm.

      Play that funky music white boy..
[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom