Re^4: xml parsers: do I need one?

I am aware of that. Java has caught up a great deal in performance issues. Nevertheless, Java code is not as low level as C code. (char* anyone?)

Makeshifts last the longest.

Comment on Re^4: xml parsers: do I need one?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^4: xml parsers: do I need one? by exussum0 (Vicar) on Sep 01, 2003 at 18:14 UTC
"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..	[reply]
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]
Re: Re^6: xml parsers: do I need one? by exussum0 (Vicar) on Jan 31, 2004 at 17:33 UTC
'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]