From: Robert Klemme <bob.news@...>
Date: 2004-10-12T23:44:35+09:00
Subject: Re: [Little OT] Re: Ruby Directions (was Re: quality of error messages)


"Edgardo Hames" <ehames@gmail.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:478c16ae04101207277fc7cec4@mail.gmail.com...
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:09:37 +0900, Robert Klemme <bob.news@gmx.net>
wrote:
> >
> > Personally I prefer the approach Matz has taken with Ruby strings
because
> > of my experience with Java strings.  It can be a major performance
> > drawback if you have to create a new string for every change that you
do
> > to a string (yes, I know there is StringBuffer, but too many methods
just
> > return a String); and in some cases your memory might not even
suffice.
> >
>
> I found this article which debunks some myths about Java performance.
> Urban performance legend #3: Immutable objects are bad for performance
>
>
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/java/library/j-jtp04223.html?ca=dgr-lnxw07-obg-JavaMyths

Well, Brian debunks the myth that immutables are *always* bad for
performance.  But he clearly states that it depends on the application at
hand.  You can believe me that I did quite some benchmarking and there are
really cases where immutables are bad for performance.  And those cases
are by far not esoteric.

Kind regards

    robert