[thelist] Re: VBScript strings (was Re: DBA survey)

Ryan Finley RyanF at SonicFoundry.com
Fri Mar 9 14:31:22 CST 2001

Yes, you're right...A function call is going to incur a larger hit than
reallocating a couple bytes of memory.

However, if large strings are being concatenated, then sprinking
Response.Write will yield a big payoff.

I really can't believe that the string handling is so bad in VB.  Pretty
crappy algorithm!

	Ryan Finley
	President - SurveyMonkey.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Warden, Matt [mailto:mwarden at odyssey-design.com]
Sent: Friday, March 09, 2001 2:10 PM
To: thelist at lists.evolt.org
Subject: Re: [thelist] Re: VBScript strings (was Re: DBA survey)

Taking this back onlist...

> But the actual concatenation procedure is still slower than the
> corresponding response.write approach (except for maybe some rare cases),
> and that was my point.

Ok. Well it seemed like you were taking a general rule and making it a
hard-fast law. I searched through my deleted items folder for your post to
re-read it, but for some reason I couldn't find it *shrug*. Maybe I read it
wrong, but it seemed like you saying that concatenation was always worse
multiple response.writes.

response.write "a" & "b" & "c"

response.write "a"
response.write "b"
response.write "c"

Now, I'm not going to claim to have personally done speed tests on this, but
would be quite surprised if the first one is slower than the second.
I do agree that a performance hit is incurred when the entire page is put
a variable and then printed out. But this, again, shouldn't discourage
from caching HTML items or even pages into Application variables.

Just wanted things to be clear for others on thelist.


For unsubscribe and other options, including
the Tip Harvester and archive of TheList go to:
http://lists.evolt.org Workers of the Web, evolt ! 

More information about the thelist mailing list