Re: Re: Did the inefficiency of /i get fixed?

I agree that including comments is a good idea, but the performance difference I mentioned above is really important IMO for any large problem. I once had to apply some regexes a 1 GB UTF-8 file in a case-insensitive way, and that time jumping through hoops in the interest of performance really mattered.

Comment on Re: Re: Did the inefficiency of /i get fixed?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Re: Re: Did the inefficiency of /i get fixed? by benrwebb (Scribe) on May 19, 2004 at 17:26 UTC
Exactly my point. If I'm just, oh for instance parsing a command line arg, or some interactive user input, I'm going for readability every time. If I'm in a situation where I'm doing a data transformation between two systems (say an OS390 to UNIX pipe, not that I've ever had to do that :-) ), I'll look at performance more closely (although I'll admit I still write it the quick, easy way first and then optimize after the fact).	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re: Re: Re: Did the inefficiency of /i get fixed?
by benrwebb (Scribe) on May 19, 2004 at 17:26 UTC

Exactly my point. If I'm just, oh for instance parsing a command line arg, or some interactive user input, I'm going for readability every time. If I'm in a situation where I'm doing a data transformation between two systems (say an OS390 to UNIX pipe, not that I've ever had to do that :-) ), I'll look at performance more closely (although I'll admit I still write it the quick, easy way first and then optimize after the fact).

[reply]