Re^2: cut vs split (and on usefullness of cat, too:-))

I am Perl-illiterate, but:

how is 5 faster than 1?
And how possibly "index" / "substring" could be faster than smth. like:


char* cut(char* pStr, int col, char* delim=",")
{

   // not a real-life code, all good assumptions here:

   int n = 0;
   while(*pStr++){
      if(*pStr==*delim){
         if(++n == col){
           return until_next_one(++pStr, delim);
         }
      }
   }

}
[download]

--?
Sorry if I missed the point.

Comment on Re^2: cut vs split (and on usefullness of cat, too:-)) Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: cut vs split (and on usefullness of cat, too:-)) by cees (Curate) on Apr 18, 2005 at 17:52 UTC
I wasn't implying that my perl version was faster than the C version. I think it is save to say that for every perl program, there is a C program that can perform the same task in less time. I was stating that using index and substr where you can is almost always faster than using a regexp, so my index and substr version was faster than the join and split versions listed above. So I was comparing different perl implementations. I guess I probably should have timed one of the split/join examples and included that, but I didn't know which one was the fastest. So I included the timing based on the C version of cut, which gives a baseline for anyone to compare against. - Cees	[reply]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.

Re^3: cut vs split (and on usefullness of cat, too:-))
by cees (Curate) on Apr 18, 2005 at 17:52 UTC

I wasn't implying that my perl version was faster than the C version. I think it is save to say that for every perl program, there is a C program that can perform the same task in less time.

I was stating that using index and substr where you can is almost always faster than using a regexp, so my index and substr version was faster than the join and split versions listed above. So I was comparing different perl implementations.

I guess I probably should have timed one of the split/join examples and included that, but I didn't know which one was the fastest. So I included the timing based on the C version of cut, which gives a baseline for anyone to compare against.

- Cees

[reply]