﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://developers.de/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>Performance of &amp;quot;string concatenation&amp;quot;</title><link />http://developers.de/blogs/damir_dobric/archive/2006/03/08/25.aspx<description>Every developer knows that string concatenation is something you should avoid when performance is required. In such cases StringBuilder should be used instead or sometimes even String.Format. However, this is not always true. Following example shows that</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008 SP1 (Build: 30619.63)</generator><item><title>re: Performance of &amp;quot;string concatenation&amp;quot;</title><link />http://developers.de/blogs/damir_dobric/archive/2006/03/08/25.aspx#26<pubdate>Wed, 08 Mar 2006 09:16:01 GMT</pubdate><guid ispermalink="false">7e491611-45ad-4dae-a68f-c4cb64439510:26</guid><dc:creator>Scott Munro</dc:creator><description>In defence of the StringBuilder, this is a scenario to which it is not suited. The overhead of instantiating a StringBuilder object is not warranted for the concatenation of only six strings.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;If you had written the test so that only a single StringBuilder object was used then it would have produced better results.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;The results do have an important message though. Don't overuse the StringBuilder. For smaller jobs, simple concatenation is more efficient.&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;img src="http://developers.de/aggbug.aspx?PostID=26" width="1" height="1"&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>