Path: csiph.com!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder3.hal-mli.net!newsfeed.hal-mli.net!feeder1.hal-mli.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!news.dfncis.de!not-for-mail From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sven_K=F6hler?= Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer Subject: Re: FastCat 'performance' Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2013 17:26:07 +0100 Lines: 19 Message-ID: References: <1rcs4eq420jj8.3menl13xfrpv.dlg@40tude.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.dfncis.de tJUC+RXD+bVv84Xy9zMhzQjXQxpjQ5NOkcowuAIBJJzuoHBa8TzKd/f2Rwj5F8 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130222 Thunderbird/17.0.3 In-Reply-To: Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.java.programmer:22653 Am 27.02.2013 21:38, schrieb Daniel Pitts: > Now, to be fair to Roedy, you aren't exactly using it "as proscribed", > and you aren't testing the time spent in the constructors. > > I've made the Strings you append longer, and I've fixed the estimates > for the FastCat and the StringBu*ers constructors to be spot-on: Well, in the example Roedy posted here, the strings weren't very long either. > So, depending on its use, FastCat *can* be about twice as fast as > StringBuffer/StringBuilder. Which is to be expected as a factor of two is the price to pay or exponential growth. Regards, Sven