Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > Java > StringBuilder Difficulties

Reply
Thread Tools

StringBuilder Difficulties

 
 
Eric Sosman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
On 6/29/2011 3:11 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 21:29:00 -0400, Eric Sosman
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 6/28/2011 8:54 PM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
>>> Dear Java'ers:
>>>
>>> I am working with StringBuilder now. I grant that it is faster
>>> in execution, but it is taking a bunch of my time to get it straight.
>>> I decided to change my VRString class (call-by-value-result) to
>>> VRStringB. Complications ensued.
>>>
>>> The amount of ornamentation required in my code was nasty, so I
>>> did some simplifying.
>>>
>>> How does one assign a String value to a StringBuilder variable?

> ^^^^^
>> One does not "assign" a reference of type T1 to a reference

> ^^^^^^^^^
> I wrote "value".


You also wrote "assign." The only values Java can "assign"
are primitives and references -- in particular, Java cannot "assign"
the sequence of characters that make up the content of a String or
a StringBuilder.

>> String str = ...; // non-null
>> StringBuilder sbd = new StringBuilder(str);

>
> I have found that, but I was wondering about how to do it with
> the same StringBuilder object. I thought that part of the advantage
> of using StringBuilder was that the amount of object creation got cut
> down.


Not sure what the "it" you mention is. The efficiency "advantage,"
to the extent that there is one, is illustrated by

String result = "";
for (String s : bigBunchOfStrings)
result += s;

vs.

StringBuilder buff = new StringBuilder();
for (String s : bigBunchOfStrings)
buff.append(s);
String result = buff.toString();

>> These are "the same" in the sense that str.length() == sbc.length()
>> and str.charAt(k) == sbd.charAt(k) for all 0<= k< str.length().
>> Also, str.equals(sbd.toString()) returns true.

>
> IOW, a String value assigned to a StringBuilder variable.


See above; this is not "assignment."

>> You've been advised to read some Java tutorials or textbooks,
>> and (it seems) have chosen not to follow that advice. Under the
>> circumstances, then, I'd have to say StringBuilder is "really this
>> difficult to play with."

>
> Which I have. I have been referring to the docs for
> StringBuilder, but the docs are rather incomplete, and I have to
> guess. This takestime.


Elsethread you mention that you've programmed in "quite a few
programming languages." Did you study them as diligently as you're
studying Java, or are you like the Real Programmer who "can write
FORTRAN in any language?"

Okay, if you've got a distaste for Java and are reluctant to
learn it, that's the way it goes. I've resisted C++ for years and
years on equally flimsy grounds. But if you're just trying to "get
by" and don't intend to learn, then at the very least stop whining!

> I know the rudiments. I am having trouble with the next level.


IMHO you do not yet know the rudiments.

--
Eric Sosman
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)d
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
blmblm@myrealbox.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Gene Wirchenko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >Gene Wirchenko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


[ snip ]

> >You *could* write something like
> >
> >String a = "first";
> >a += " second";
> >a += " etc";
> >
> >and my *guess* is that this is not horribly inefficient if the
> >number of concatenation operations is small. (The conventional

>
> IOW, who cares if it is only a bit of inefficiency? Agreed.
>
> >wisdom, as I understand it, is that the Java runtime is pretty
> >good at managing short-lived objects, so creating new objects is
> >not invariably something to avoid, though as with anything else
> >one shouldn't get carried away, maybe. Again the experts may
> >disagree.)
> >
> >But if there are a lot of concatenation operations it's said to be
> >more efficient to use a StringBuilder, e.g.:
> >
> >StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
> >sb.append("first");
> >sb.append(" second");
> >sb.append(" etc");
> >String a = sb.toString();

>
> It is. My test code appends one character at a time. Switching
> >from String to StringBuilder cut the execution time by about 40%.


So okay, you probably *do* want to use StringBuilder, and having
that confirmed by experiment is good.

[ snip ]

> >(I'm not optimistic that this commentary will be helpful, or
> >even that it will be read[*], given that you didn't reply to
> >my posts in the threads about passing method names to methods,
> >but I guess I'll try again .... <shrug> )
> >
> >[*] That's not actually meant as snark; not long ago I changed
> >the e-mail address I use to post, to a GMail one, and I'm under
> >the impression that some Usenet participants routinely filter out
> >anything from a GMail address, so I worry just a bit ....

>
> Not me. I killfile only the deserving (meaning those undeserving
> of my time).


More useful information; thanks for the reply.

A general comment: I'm inclined to agree with the people who are
saying that in general it seems like you're trying to write [name
of your favorite language] programs in Java, and in the long term
that seems less optimal than trying to grok the Java mindset.
I think part of it may be struggling with the object-oriented
paradigm, but part of it may just be coming to terms with the fact
that Java is, as I think Patricia Shanahan said not long ago
(possibly in another thread), that Java is just plain verbose.

But I have some sympathy with the desire just to get something
running: I spent a number of hours a while back trying to teach
myself some Scheme and in the process trying make it conform to
my strongly-typed-languages-trained mindset, and I'd probably
have done better to get a good introductory book and try to grok
the no-types(?) mindset. (Maybe I'll try again at some point.)

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Gene Wirchenko
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      06-30-2011
On 30 Jun 2011 20:30:00 GMT, (E-Mail Removed)
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[snip]

>A general comment: I'm inclined to agree with the people who are
>saying that in general it seems like you're trying to write [name
>of your favorite language] programs in Java, and in the long term
>that seems less optimal than trying to grok the Java mindset.


My mindset is that I want to get my work done. I do not care
about the Java mindset except as it helps me get my work done.

>I think part of it may be struggling with the object-oriented
>paradigm, but part of it may just be coming to terms with the fact


No, I am experienced with OOP.

>that Java is, as I think Patricia Shanahan said not long ago
>(possibly in another thread), that Java is just plain verbose.


Well, I posted about the verbosity earlier and got flak over it.

>But I have some sympathy with the desire just to get something
>running: I spent a number of hours a while back trying to teach


And without having to buy into a language religion.

>myself some Scheme and in the process trying make it conform to
>my strongly-typed-languages-trained mindset, and I'd probably
>have done better to get a good introductory book and try to grok
>the no-types(?) mindset. (Maybe I'll try again at some point.)


Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
 
Reply With Quote
 
Eric Sosman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2011
On 6/30/2011 5:17 PM, Patricia Shanahan wrote:
> On 6/30/2011 1:30 PM, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> ...
>> But I have some sympathy with the desire just to get something
>> running: I spent a number of hours a while back trying to teach
>> myself some Scheme and in the process trying make it conform to
>> my strongly-typed-languages-trained mindset, and I'd probably
>> have done better to get a good introductory book and try to grok
>> the no-types(?) mindset. (Maybe I'll try again at some point.)
>>

>
> I've tried several approaches to learning programming languages, and the
> one that works best for me is to get an introductory book, and work
> through it, reading each chapter and doing the exercises.


To this I'd add (and perhaps this is reflective only of my
own modes of learning): Get hold of some samples of good code in
the language (or "believed to be good," since the learner is in
a poor position to judge), and read the code. With the tutorials
and reference works at one's elbow, of course. "Why didn't he need
to grab a lock here?" "Oh, *that's* how you handle file-not-found!"
And so on, and so on.

I still recall learning SNOBOL years and years ago by studying
the SNOBOL source of the SNOBOL compiler while frantically flipping
pages in the SNOBOL book. My grasp of the language SNOBOLed.

--
Eric Sosman
(E-Mail Removed)d
 
Reply With Quote
 
John B. Matthews
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2011
In article <iuj8bk$v5i$(E-Mail Removed)>,
Eric Sosman <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I still recall learning SNOBOL years and years ago by studying
> the SNOBOL source of the SNOBOL compiler while frantically flipping
> pages in the SNOBOL book. My grasp of the language SNOBOLed.


You might enjoy looking at the SPITBOL operations that are part of the
GNAT Ada Library in the package, GNAT.Spitbol:

<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gnat_rm/The-GNAT-Library.html#The-GNAT-Library>

Much of the documentation is in the corresponding specification (.ads)
files:

<http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/ada/>

GNAT.Spitbol.Patterns is an example:

<http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs/trunk/gcc/ada/g-spipat.ads?revision=139296&view=markup>

The GPL version is available here:

<http://libre.adacore.com/libre/>

--
John B. Matthews
trashgod at gmail dot com
<http://sites.google.com/site/drjohnbmatthews>
 
Reply With Quote
 
blmblm@myrealbox.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-01-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Gene Wirchenko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2011 20:30:00 GMT, (E-Mail Removed)
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >A general comment: I'm inclined to agree with the people who are
> >saying that in general it seems like you're trying to write [name
> >of your favorite language] programs in Java, and in the long term
> >that seems less optimal than trying to grok the Java mindset.

>
> My mindset is that I want to get my work done. I do not care
> about the Java mindset except as it helps me get my work done.


Yes, and if you were going to do a lot of programming in Java it
would seem to make sense to adapt to the local customs, so to speak.
Not to do so seems to me like fighting with your tools, which, well,
I do it too sometimes, but it does get in the way of getting stuff
done.

> >I think part of it may be struggling with the object-oriented
> >paradigm, but part of it may just be coming to terms with the fact

>
> No, I am experienced with OOP.


Huh. Well, with all due respect ....

I'd have said otherwise given that all of the variables and methods
in your TimingTesting program (the version I tried revising) seem
to be static (except the local variables). I'm also puzzled by why
that program duplicates so much code, when you could have factored
out the parts that are different using objects-as-code-wrappers.
But maybe the O-O languages you've used before don't make you do
that, and adapting to that particular Java idiom seemed not worth
the trouble.

> >that Java is, as I think Patricia Shanahan said not long ago
> >(possibly in another thread), that Java is just plain verbose.

>
> Well, I posted about the verbosity earlier and got flak over it.
>
> >But I have some sympathy with the desire just to get something
> >running: I spent a number of hours a while back trying to teach

>
> And without having to buy into a language religion.


Hm. I wouldn't say that adapting to local customs constitutes
buying into a language religion. YMMV, I suppose.

> >myself some Scheme and in the process trying make it conform to
> >my strongly-typed-languages-trained mindset, and I'd probably
> >have done better to get a good introductory book and try to grok
> >the no-types(?) mindset. (Maybe I'll try again at some point.)


--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gene Wirchenko
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2011
On 1 Jul 2011 20:47:47 GMT, (E-Mail Removed)
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>Gene Wirchenko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On 30 Jun 2011 20:30:00 GMT, (E-Mail Removed)
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >A general comment: I'm inclined to agree with the people who are
>> >saying that in general it seems like you're trying to write [name
>> >of your favorite language] programs in Java, and in the long term
>> >that seems less optimal than trying to grok the Java mindset.

>>
>> My mindset is that I want to get my work done. I do not care
>> about the Java mindset except as it helps me get my work done.

>
>Yes, and if you were going to do a lot of programming in Java it
>would seem to make sense to adapt to the local customs, so to speak.
>Not to do so seems to me like fighting with your tools, which, well,
>I do it too sometimes, but it does get in the way of getting stuff
>done.


My tools include manyyears of experience programming. I do not
think that Java is such a precious snowflake -- the same is true of
any language -- that I should have to throw all that experience away
in order to use the language.

>> >I think part of it may be struggling with the object-oriented
>> >paradigm, but part of it may just be coming to terms with the fact

>>
>> No, I am experienced with OOP.

>
>Huh. Well, with all due respect ....
>
>I'd have said otherwise given that all of the variables and methods
>in your TimingTesting program (the version I tried revising) seem
>to be static (except the local variables). I'm also puzzled by why
>that program duplicates so much code, when you could have factored
>out the parts that are different using objects-as-code-wrappers.
>But maybe the O-O languages you've used before don't make you do
>that, and adapting to that particular Java idiom seemed not worth
>the trouble.


Oh, I asked about that. One apparently can not pass a function
pointer parameter as in C. The ways that were posted involved lookup
every time AFIACS and I judged that it might swamp what I was
measuring (checking if a character were in a set). So, to my chagrin,
I had to go with cut-and-paste.

>> >that Java is, as I think Patricia Shanahan said not long ago
>> >(possibly in another thread), that Java is just plain verbose.

>>
>> Well, I posted about the verbosity earlier and got flak over it.
>>
>> >But I have some sympathy with the desire just to get something
>> >running: I spent a number of hours a while back trying to teach

>>
>> And without having to buy into a language religion.

>
>Hm. I wouldn't say that adapting to local customs constitutes
>buying into a language religion. YMMV, I suppose.


Some of the posters have been quite vociferous about it.

>> >myself some Scheme and in the process trying make it conform to
>> >my strongly-typed-languages-trained mindset, and I'd probably
>> >have done better to get a good introductory book and try to grok
>> >the no-types(?) mindset. (Maybe I'll try again at some point.)


I am pretty much past the intro stage and into the pain stage
where there is not so much help.

Sincerely,

Gene Wirchenko
 
Reply With Quote
 
Robert Klemme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2011
On 07/02/2011 02:29 AM, Gene Wirchenko wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2011 20:47:47 GMT, (E-Mail Removed)
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> In article<(E-Mail Removed) >,
>> Gene Wirchenko<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On 30 Jun 2011 20:30:00 GMT, (E-Mail Removed)
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> A general comment: I'm inclined to agree with the people who are
>>>> saying that in general it seems like you're trying to write [name
>>>> of your favorite language] programs in Java, and in the long term
>>>> that seems less optimal than trying to grok the Java mindset.
>>>
>>> My mindset is that I want to get my work done. I do not care
>>> about the Java mindset except as it helps me get my work done.

>>
>> Yes, and if you were going to do a lot of programming in Java it
>> would seem to make sense to adapt to the local customs, so to speak.
>> Not to do so seems to me like fighting with your tools, which, well,
>> I do it too sometimes, but it does get in the way of getting stuff
>> done.

>
> My tools include manyyears of experience programming. I do not
> think that Java is such a precious snowflake -- the same is true of
> any language -- that I should have to throw all that experience away
> in order to use the language.


As far as I can see nobody asked you to do that. If adjusting to a new
language's mindset requires you to throw away everything you've learned
so far then you probably better stick with the previous experience and
tools. That will be much more efficient and beneficial.

If, on the other hand, you want to use a new language then you typically
get best results (or results at all) if you adjust to the environment
you find. You may have noticed that your issues with StringBuilder seem
to be quite unique - others posting here do not seem to have those
issues. In my experience this is usually an indication that I am doing
something wrong or haven't properly understood the new environment yet.

>>>> I think part of it may be struggling with the object-oriented
>>>> paradigm, but part of it may just be coming to terms with the fact
>>>
>>> No, I am experienced with OOP.

>>
>> Huh. Well, with all due respect ....
>>
>> I'd have said otherwise given that all of the variables and methods
>> in your TimingTesting program (the version I tried revising) seem
>> to be static (except the local variables). I'm also puzzled by why
>> that program duplicates so much code, when you could have factored
>> out the parts that are different using objects-as-code-wrappers.
>> But maybe the O-O languages you've used before don't make you do
>> that, and adapting to that particular Java idiom seemed not worth
>> the trouble.

>
> Oh, I asked about that. One apparently can not pass a function
> pointer parameter as in C. The ways that were posted involved lookup
> every time AFIACS and I judged that it might swamp what I was
> measuring (checking if a character were in a set). So, to my chagrin,
> I had to go with cut-and-paste.


The usual solution in Java is to factor out an API into an interface and
have several implementations of that interface. See Callable for
example - this basically encapsulates a "function" with no arguments and
a single return value:

http://download.oracle.com/javase/1..../Callable.html

In your TimingTesting program you could define a private interface like this

private interface Search {
boolean search(char c);
}

Then you create inner classes

private final class SequentialSearch implements Search {
@Override
boolean search(char c) {
for ( int i = 0; i < chars.length(); ++i ) {
if (chars.charAt(i) == c) {
return true;
}
}

return false;
}
}

public void parseSequentialSearch() {
parse(new SequentialSearch());
}

private void parse(Search s) {
int xScan=0;
boolean fBuildingIdent=false;
boolean fInIdentChars;
String cIdent=""; // fussy init
while (xScan<cParseString.length())
{
char CurrChar=cParseString.charAt(xScan);
fInIdentChars=s.search(CurrChar);
....
}

etc.

This would be the _minimal_ refactoring to get what you want but you
also need to switch from having all the state static in TimingTesting to
instance. Chances are that a more thorough refactoring yields a
significantly better (in terms of OO and modularity) solution.

Btw, if you want to create a parser in Java then I recommend looking
into ANTLR. There is even a graphical UI (ANTLRWorks) which helps get
results quickly and even has grammar debugging. Cool stuff!

http://www.antlr.org/works/index.html

Cheers

robert
 
Reply With Quote
 
blmblm@myrealbox.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2011
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Gene Wirchenko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 1 Jul 2011 20:47:47 GMT, (E-Mail Removed)
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> >Gene Wirchenko <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On 30 Jun 2011 20:30:00 GMT, (E-Mail Removed)
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >A general comment: I'm inclined to agree with the people who are
> >> >saying that in general it seems like you're trying to write [name
> >> >of your favorite language] programs in Java, and in the long term
> >> >that seems less optimal than trying to grok the Java mindset.
> >>
> >> My mindset is that I want to get my work done. I do not care
> >> about the Java mindset except as it helps me get my work done.

> >
> >Yes, and if you were going to do a lot of programming in Java it
> >would seem to make sense to adapt to the local customs, so to speak.
> >Not to do so seems to me like fighting with your tools, which, well,
> >I do it too sometimes, but it does get in the way of getting stuff
> >done.

>
> My tools include manyyears of experience programming. I do not
> think that Java is such a precious snowflake -- the same is true of
> any language -- that I should have to throw all that experience away
> in order to use the language.


As another poster has responded, I'm not convinced that's what
you're being asked to do (though you obviously feel otherwise).

It seems to me that one of the things one learns from doing a lot
of coding in a lot of languages is recognizing when something is
the same as what you've done before, just with different syntax,
and when it's different.

<shrug>

> >> >I think part of it may be struggling with the object-oriented
> >> >paradigm, but part of it may just be coming to terms with the fact
> >>
> >> No, I am experienced with OOP.

> >
> >Huh. Well, with all due respect ....
> >
> >I'd have said otherwise given that all of the variables and methods
> >in your TimingTesting program (the version I tried revising) seem
> >to be static (except the local variables). I'm also puzzled by why
> >that program duplicates so much code, when you could have factored
> >out the parts that are different using objects-as-code-wrappers.
> >But maybe the O-O languages you've used before don't make you do
> >that, and adapting to that particular Java idiom seemed not worth
> >the trouble.

>
> Oh, I asked about that. One apparently can not pass a function
> pointer parameter as in C. The ways that were posted involved lookup
> every time AFIACS and I judged that it might swamp what I was
> measuring (checking if a character were in a set). So, to my chagrin,
> I had to go with cut-and-paste.


Without experimenting to find out, of course ....

It seems to me that virtual method invocations are so common in
Java that they would be well-optimized. But if you want to claim
that the code you eventually hope to produce won't have one, well,
yeah, that's true, so maybe it matters. Then again, wouldn't a
similar argument apply to C with function pointers? Maybe not.
I don't seem to be able to think this through as carefully as
I'd like.

Anyway, I was curious, so I ran your code and my revision [1], and
the results were -- surprising [2]. I noticed, by the way, that
all three of your parse methods make a call to SequentialSearch,
assigning the result to a variable that apparently isn't used.
Thinking that *might* be a mistake, I also tried your code and my
revision with that possibly-extra call removed.

[1] Message-ID: <(E-Mail Removed)>

[2] I tried this on several different systems, all Fedora Linux
running Java 1.6.0_21 but different hardware and different releases
of Fedora. I was going to include results here, but in trying
the experiment on additional systems I'm less and less convinced
the results would mean anything without my putting more effort
into it than I'm up for. (Usually when I'm timing something
I try it twice, and if results are close enough I don't bother
with additional trials. In this case results of two trials were
just different enough for me to think I'd need to do more to get
meaningful results.) Briefly, though .... :

Your code was fairly (but not 100%!) consistent in showing
treeset-based search to be fastest, followed by binary search and
then sequential search, though sometimes the difference between
sequential and binary was small. My code was -- well, this is where
it's surprising. On most of the systems where I tried it, treeset
search was fastest, but sequential search was faster than binary
search; on one system, however, the order was as for your code.
Your code was pretty consistently faster than mine, though usually
not by a lot (less than 1%).

> >> >that Java is, as I think Patricia Shanahan said not long ago
> >> >(possibly in another thread), that Java is just plain verbose.
> >>
> >> Well, I posted about the verbosity earlier and got flak over it.
> >>
> >> >But I have some sympathy with the desire just to get something
> >> >running: I spent a number of hours a while back trying to teach
> >>
> >> And without having to buy into a language religion.

> >
> >Hm. I wouldn't say that adapting to local customs constitutes
> >buying into a language religion. YMMV, I suppose.

>
> Some of the posters have been quite vociferous about it.


I've noticed a certain amount of, oh, "contentiousness" maybe, on both
sides. Sort of a , sort of not.

(Aside: I recognize your name from alt.folklore.computers, where
you seem, oh, much more mild-mannered. Hm.)

> >> >myself some Scheme and in the process trying make it conform to
> >> >my strongly-typed-languages-trained mindset, and I'd probably
> >> >have done better to get a good introductory book and try to grok
> >> >the no-types(?) mindset. (Maybe I'll try again at some point.)

>
> I am pretty much past the intro stage and into the pain stage
> where there is not so much help.


That people are not willing to offer further help when many of their
previous suggestions have been rejected should not be a total surprise.
<shrug>

--
B. L. Massingill
ObDisclaimer: I don't speak for my employers; they return the favor.
 
Reply With Quote
 
supercalifragilisticexpialadiamaticonormalizeringelimatisticantations
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-02-2011
On 02/07/2011 2:33 PM, (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> (Aside: I recognize your name from alt.folklore.computers, where
> you seem, oh, much more mild-mannered. Hm.)


CLJP seems to bring out a contentious streak in people.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
string vs stringbuilder H.G.Srivatsa ASP .Net 3 08-25-2005 01:55 PM
Double Quotes in a stringbuilder =?Utf-8?B?SnVzdGlu?= ASP .Net 2 03-18-2005 12:57 AM
Does a StringBuilder effect Viewstate variable size? darrel ASP .Net 2 01-28-2005 11:31 PM
How to reset a StringBuilder? ESPN Lover ASP .Net 2 10-14-2004 03:42 PM
no stringbuilder in C#2.0? =?Utf-8?B?SGFuZGk=?= ASP .Net 2 09-11-2004 08:27 AM



Advertisments