String compare performance

[Bruno Medeiros]

On 29/11/2010 02:11, Michel Fortin wrote:
> On 2010-11-28 20:57:38 -0500, bearophobic <notbear at cave.net> said:
>
>> Stewart Gordon Wrote:
>>
>>> On 27/11/2010 23:04, Kagamin wrote:
>>>> bearophile Wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Also, is there a way to bit-compare given memory areas at much
>>>>>> higher speed than element per element (I mean for arrays in
>>>>>> general)?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't know. I think you can't.
>>>>
>>>> You can use memcmp, though only for utf-8 strings.
>>>
>>> Only for utf-8 strings? Why's that? I would've thought memcmp to be
>>> type agnostic.
>>>
>>> Stewart.
>>
>> D community is amazing cult of premature optimization fans. Any one of
>> you heard of canonically equivalent sequences? The integrated Unicode
>> support is a clusterfuck. Please do compare ASCII strings with memcmp,
>> but no Unicode. Where did the original poster pull this problem from,
>> his ass? "My system runs 100,000,000,000 instructions per second, but
>> this comparison of 4 letter strings uses 5 cycles too much! This is
>> the only problem on the way to world domination with my $500 Microsoft
>> Word clone!". No wait, the problems are completely imaginatory.
>
> Comparing unicode UTF-* strings using memcmp is fine as long as what you
> want to know is whether the code points are the same. If your point was
> that per-code-point comparisons aren't the right way to compare Unicode
> strings (in most situations), then I support this view too. Though if
> that's what you wanted to say, you could have made your point clearer.
>
>

Why are people still replying to nameless trolls? There has been several 
cases of that in recent threads. :/

-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Engineer