<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Performance of str+str and ‘‘.join()</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.caifeng.me/2009/04/28/performance-of-strstr-and-%e2%80%98%e2%80%98join/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.caifeng.me/2009/04/28/performance-of-strstr-and-%e2%80%98%e2%80%98join/</link>
	<description>Paw trace ...</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Apr 2010 04:29:14 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Chaobin</title>
		<link>http://blog.caifeng.me/2009/04/28/performance-of-strstr-and-%e2%80%98%e2%80%98join/comment-page-1/#comment-40</link>
		<dc:creator>Chaobin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 14 Apr 2010 08:59:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.caifeng.me/blog/?p=60#comment-40</guid>
		<description>Tested on my iMac, join() indeed is faster! 
Guess the point is right referring to the memory usage. Since operator &#039;+&#039; applied on a str will of course force the memory block to be copied in every loop, it deals things slower with that big overhead.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tested on my iMac, join() indeed is faster!<br />
Guess the point is right referring to the memory usage. Since operator &#8216;+&#8217; applied on a str will of course force the memory block to be copied in every loop, it deals things slower with that big overhead.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

