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

And since it's based on a library written in C, I wouldn't be at all surprised if it beats the Java apps too.

Makeshifts last the longest.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re^2: xml parsers: do I need one?
by exussum0 (Vicar) on Aug 28, 2003 at 16:23 UTC
    Java is only slow on speed startup. For execution, it's not THAT much difference since hotspot (optimizing) or just the regular execution JVM's turn the byte code into a compiled program.

    ---
    Play that funky music white boy..

[reply]
[reply]
      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.

[reply]
        "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]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom