in reply to Re^2: Five Ways to Reverse a String of Words (C#, Perl 5, Perl6, Ruby, Haskell)
in thread Five Ways to Reverse a String of Words (C#, Perl 5, Perl 6, Ruby, Haskell)

So since faster is a relatively objective term and "efficient" depends on what you're trying to minimise usage of, arguing that it's more efficient without further details doesn't really work.

Of course you could define efficiency differently. Maybe you're trying to minimise peak memory consumption, network utilisation, coding time or whatever but you haven't said that's what you want.

In this case, why do you want to avoid the string copying? Because each copy takes time. Unless the final string is long enough to start filling main memory, memory usage is not an issue and that leaves only speed. So as far as I can see, except for special cases, when discussing string concat the only useful definition of "more efficient" == "faster".

  • Comment on Re^3: Five Ways to Reverse a String of Words (C#, Perl 5, Perl6, Ruby, Haskell)

Replies are listed 'Best First'.