From: Bill Guindon <agorilla@...>
Date: 2004-09-28T10:39:21+09:00
Subject: Re: {newb} Each statements

On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 09:33:16 +0900, James Edward Gray II
<james@grayproductions.net> wrote:

> ndata = ndata.split(//).map{ |c| ((c[0]-97)+rand(10))%26 }.join

That started to look a bit too perl like for me, so I decided to
compare the 'each_byte' and the 'split' approaches.  Granted, it's a
simple comparison, but seems each_byte is a bit faster, and looks
easier to read (at least to me).

btw, suggestions on simple benchmarking welcome.

Here's my simple comparison script:
######################################
data = "some really silly string of text which will be encrypted soon"

######################################
def encrypt_byte(data)
  ndata = ''
  a = data.size-1
  srand(5000)
  data.each_byte {|c| ndata << (((c-96)+rand(10))%26) + 97}
  return ndata
end

######################################
def encrypt_split(data)
  ndata=data.dup
  a = ndata.size-1
  srand(5000)
  ndata = ndata.split(//).map{ |c| (((c[0]-96)+rand(10))%26 + 97).chr}.join
end

######################################
t0 = Time.now
1000.times do
  puts encrypt_byte(data)
end

t1 = Time.now
1000.times do
  puts encrypt_split(data)
end

t2 = Time.now
puts t1 - t0, t2 - t1

-- 
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)