<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://blogs.msdn.com/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>More on Perf and Productivity</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2004/07/01/171497.aspx</link><description>Anthony Moore , Dev Lead for the BCL team posted a great comment on Rico&amp;#8217;s latest quiz &amp;#8230; It was so good I could not let it be buried there, so I thought I&amp;#8217;d re-post it here&amp;#8230; I am sure it will generate some comments ;-) I am a colleague</description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP1 (Build: 61025.2)</generator><item><title>re: More on Perf and Productivity</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2004/07/01/171497.aspx#171541</link><pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 05:21:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:171541</guid><dc:creator>Eric Newton</dc:creator><description>I forget who, but somebody was complaigning about StringBuilder.Append's thread safety causing a perf hit...  I'm curious as to why StringBuilder by default is thread safe (according to that guy who i cant remember)</description></item><item><title>re: More on Perf and Productivity</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2004/07/01/171497.aspx#171893</link><pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 15:54:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:171893</guid><dc:creator>Keith Hill</dc:creator><description>For anybody else who thinks .NET needs a StringTokenizer class, go over to the feedback center (&lt;a target="_new" href="http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/"&gt;http://lab.msdn.microsoft.com/productfeedback/&lt;/a&gt;) and vote on FDBK10792.</description></item><item><title>re: More on Perf and Productivity</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2004/07/01/171497.aspx#172000</link><pubDate>Fri, 02 Jul 2004 18:23:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:172000</guid><dc:creator>Frank Hileman</dc:creator><description>The main point I took from all this is the need for &amp;quot;less object-oriented&amp;quot; functions. That is, useful functions that can operate on string, character, or memory buffers in place, without allocating new objects just to access a function.</description></item><item><title>Xml Performance and Practice</title><link>http://blogs.msdn.com/brada/archive/2004/07/01/171497.aspx#189881</link><pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2004 17:36:00 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">91d46819-8472-40ad-a661-2c78acb4018c:189881</guid><dc:creator>Ken Brubaker</dc:creator><description>How costly is it to define an id attribute on every element in an XML Vocabulary?</description></item></channel></rss>