Home. 
.

transparent

transparent

transparent

Altova Mailing List Archives


Re: [xml-dev] Speed in Languages and Browser Architectures

From: "derek denny-brown" <zuligag@-----.--->
To: "Michael Champion" <mc@-------.--->
Date: 3/3/2007 5:57:00 AM
The .NET v2 parser is faster that the old C++ parser mostly because
the C++ parser was a 1st gen XML parser while the .NET parser is ~3rd
gen.  Also, the C++ parser had to have namespace processing layered,
because XML Namespaces as they are known now, didn't exist until the
core of the parser was long done.  If you took the same basic
principles that make the .NET parser so fast, I am extremely confident
you could build a faster C++ parser.

On 3/2/07, Michael Champion <mc@x...> wrote:
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: derek denny-brown [mailto:zuligag@g...]
> > Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:40 PM
> > To: Elliotte Harold
> > Cc: Rick Marshall; Tei; xml-dev@l...
> > Subject: Re: [xml-dev] Speed in Languages and Browser Architectures
>
> > Except that we are talking about the performance of XML parsers, and
> > XML is all about string processing and Java string processing is slow.
> >  Java XML parsing will never be faster than a good XML parser written
> > in C.  There is just too much overhead, and C benefits from 'struct's,
> > the lack of which hinders ones ability to write certain constructs
> > efficiently in Java.    Any sufficiently fast Java XML parser could be
> > ported to C and made faster in the process.
>
> You would know the answer and be able to talk about it, so I'll ask you,
> Derek:  Aren't the Microsoft .NET parsers faster than the Native parsers?
> If so, is that because the MSXML crew have been so busy with the plumbing
> that they haven't been able to focus on optimization, because .NET string
> processing is faster than Java, or what?
>
>
>


transparent
Print
Mail
Like It
Disclaimer
.

These Archives are provided for informational purposes only and have been generated directly from the Altova mailing list archive system and are comprised of the lists set forth on www.altova.com/list/index.html. Therefore, Altova does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy, reliability, completeness, usefulness, non-infringement of intellectual property rights, or quality of any content on the Altova Mailing List Archive(s), regardless of who originates that content. You expressly understand and agree that you bear all risks associated with using or relying on that content. Altova will not be liable or responsible in any way for any content posted including, but not limited to, any errors or omissions in content, or for any losses or damage of any kind incurred as a result of the use of or reliance on any content. This disclaimer and limitation on liability is in addition to the disclaimers and limitations contained in the Website Terms of Use and elsewhere on the site.

.
.

transparent

transparent