11 ms·
Good read, and I just read this post while attending Erlang Factory in SF, in the middle of a talk about Lists and Strings :) I asked the teacher about your co
by dylanz 16y ago
Good read, and I just read this post while attending Erlang Factory in SF, in the middle of a talk about Lists and Strings :)
I asked the teacher about your comment on String manipulation. Yes, it is pretty in-efficient. There are libraries to make manipulation easier, and, you can always go down to binary types, which is much more performant.
We chose to use Erlang for a variety of reasons, and String manipulation isn't a problem for us (it's definitely a pre-mature optimization point (for us) at the moment).
- gislik 16y agoI resonate well with many of the reasons for why one chooses Erlang in a project. I guess it all depends on the problem domain :)
- nivertech 16y agoErlang strings is just a syntactic sugar over lists. 1> [104,105]. "hi" 2> [$h,$i]. [104,105] 3> "hi". "hi" Which is efficient for some uses (i.e. iterating over UTF32 characters) and inefficient for others (high memory usage). You can always use: * atoms - for interned strings or enums * binaries - for memory efficiency (i.e. UTF8 byte sequences) * IO-lists - for efficient appending and IO. What I would like is a per-module compiler directive/pragma, which will turn every "string" into <<"string">>, while @"string" will remain syntax sugar for list.