String.Concat and String.Copy

I found this online:

Code:

---

'The following source code concatenate two strings.

Dim str1 As String = "ppp"
Dim str2 As String = "ccc"
Dim strRes As String = String.Concat(str1, str2)
Console.WriteLine(strRes)

'The following source code concatenates one string and one object.

Dim obj As Object = 12
strRes = String.Concat(str1, obj)
Console.WriteLine(strRes)

'The Copy method copies contents of a string to another. The Copy method takes a string as input and returns another string with the same contents as the input string. For example, the following code copies str1 to strRes.

strRes = String.Copy(str1)
Console.WriteLine("Copy result :" + strRes)

---

My question is, what is the advantage of using concatenate and copy over something like this:

Code:

---

'concatenate
Console.WriteLine(str1 + str2)

'copy
strRes = str1
Console.WriteLine(strRes)

---

Thanks.

In this case.... nothing. Just another way to skin a cat. (no pun intended).

-tg

The advantage of String.Concat becomes apparent when concatenating multiple strings. It will concatenate them efficiently, while just using the concatenation operator will create intermediate String objects that use extra memory unnecessarily. For example, this:

vb.net Code:

Dim str As String = "str1" & "str2" & "str3" & "str4"

will actually create three new String objects, two of which are simply discarded and occupy memory unnecessarily. This:

vb.net Code:

Dim str As String = String.Concat("str1", "str2", "str3", "str4")

will only create one new String object that gets populated efficiently using pointers in C# unsafe code. Remember, the Framework is written almost entirely in C#.


The difference between String.Copy and a straight assignment is the Copy actually creates a new String object with the same contents, rather than both variables referring to the same String object with an assignment. In most cases that won't actually matter but it may do in some. To see what I mean, try this:

Code:

---

Dim str1 As String = "Hello World"
Dim str2 As String = str1
Dim str3 As String = "Goodbye Cruel World"
Dim str4 As String = String.Copy(str3)

MessageBox.Show((str1 Is str2).ToString(), "str1 Is str2")
MessageBox.Show((str3 Is str4).ToString(), "str3 Is str4")

---

That shows that str1 and str2 both refer to the same String object, while str3 and str4 refer to two different String objects.

So what's the advantage of that over StringBuilder? I was always taught to use StringBuilder when concatenating multiple string items together.... I didn't realize that Concat worked in a similar manner. Have I been misinformed all these years?

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

So what's the advantage of that over StringBuilder? I was always taught to use StringBuilder when concatenating multiple string items together.... I didn't realize that Concat worked in a similar manner. Have I been misinformed all these years?

-tg

---

No, not misinformed. String.Concat is a single method call, while with a StringBuilder you can call Append multiple times and still have the string built efficiently. If you want to build a string from several substrings and you know all the substrings to begin with then you should use String.Concat. By knowing all the substrings to begin with I mean that you can access each one using a simple expression.

If the substrings are not all known at the same time then a StringBuilder is a better option because you can call Append multiple times over many lines of code. That's useful if you need to use If statements to decide which substrings to use, for instance.

Ah, OK.... makes sense. Usually when I'm using stringBuilder it's doing mutiple lines over time.

Thanks
-tg

ps - I owe you some rep for that.

Thanks a lot for that help.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmcilhinney

It will concatenate them efficiently, while just using the concatenation operator will create intermediate String objects that use extra memory unnecessarily.

---

Why only three? I don't follow... in your example you presented 5 strings.

I only count four strings in his example, in which case, three would be correct, as the number of intermediaries would be equal to the number of concatenation operators.

it will create three NEW strings....
The first one is string1 & string2 .... the second one will be the previously created string (call it string1string2) with string3 added (string1string2string3) .... at this point string1string2 is then discarded..... then it concatenates string4 onto that resulting string1string2string3string4 .... and discarding string1string2string3 ....

See, the problem is that strings are immutable, meaning once set, they cannot change... so when you make changes, be it concatenation or replacing and existing character with another, or even deleting a character from the string, it actually has to create a new memory space to store the new value, and returns that.

-tg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by techgnome

it will create three NEW strings....
The first one is string1 & string2 .... the second one will be the previously created string (call it string1string2) with string3 added (string1string2string3) .... at this point string1string2 is then discarded..... then it concatenates string4 onto that resulting string1string2string3string4 .... and discarding string1string2string3 ....

See, the problem is that strings are immutable, meaning once set, they cannot change... so when you make changes, be it concatenation or replacing and existing character with another, or even deleting a character from the string, it actually has to create a new memory space to store the new value, and returns that.

-tg

---

Makes sense, though in the end onlyone string is kept: string1string2string3string4. Am I right? When jmcilhinney first said that 3 new strings are created it makes it sound like quite a bit of memory is being used up, when in actuality that memory is immediately made available again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by razzendahcuben

Makes sense, though in the end onlyone string is kept: string1string2string3string4. Am I right? When jmcilhinney first said that 3 new strings are created it makes it sound like quite a bit of memory is being used up, when in actuality that memory is immediately made available again.

---

Yes, the memory is available again but it does have to be reclaimed, which takes time. The real issue is the fact that copying data from string to string to string is slow. Try this code to see how a lot of string concatenation can slow down execution of your app:

Code:

---

Imports System.Text

Module Module1

    Sub Main()
        Dim substring As String = "Hello World"
        Dim str As String = String.Empty
        Dim timer As Stopwatch = Stopwatch.StartNew()

        For count As Integer = 1 To 1000
            str &= substring
        Next

        Console.WriteLine(timer.Elapsed.ToString())

        Dim substrings(1000 - 1) As String

        For index As Integer = 0 To substrings.GetUpperBound(0)
            substrings(index) = substring
        Next

        timer = Stopwatch.StartNew()

        str = String.Concat(substrings)

        Console.WriteLine(timer.Elapsed.ToString())

        Dim builder As New StringBuilder

        timer = Stopwatch.StartNew()

        For count As Integer = 1 To 1000
            builder.Append(substring)
        Next

        Console.WriteLine(timer.Elapsed.ToString())
        Console.ReadLine()
    End Sub

End Module

---

Now, admittedly, all three of those operations happen pretty quickly but using the & operator is over 100 times slower than using the StringBuilder and over 200 times slower than String.Concat. Even if we include the creation of the array in the time for String.Concat like this:

Code:

---

Imports System.Text

Module Module1

    Sub Main()
        Dim substring As String = "Hello World"
        Dim str As String = String.Empty
        Dim timer As Stopwatch = Stopwatch.StartNew()

        For count As Integer = 1 To 1000
            str &= substring
        Next

        Console.WriteLine(timer.Elapsed.ToString())

        timer = Stopwatch.StartNew()

        Dim substrings(1000 - 1) As String

        For index As Integer = 0 To substrings.GetUpperBound(0)
            substrings(index) = substring
        Next

        str = String.Concat(substrings)

        Console.WriteLine(timer.Elapsed.ToString())

        Dim builder As New StringBuilder

        timer = Stopwatch.StartNew()

        For count As Integer = 1 To 1000
            builder.Append(substring)
        Next

        Console.WriteLine(timer.Elapsed.ToString())
        Console.ReadLine()
    End Sub

End Module

---

it is still the fastest of the three methods.

Thanks for that code, that's very helpful.

No, no, no.

I've spent days looking over this in detail in the past. And days arguing over this. Look at ILDASM for this.

When joining multiple hardcoded strings, using the & is better.

Dim str As String = "str1" & "str2" & "str3" & "str4"

The strings are joined at compile time. No copying.

When joining multiple variable strings, then & is the same as string.concat.

str1 = str2 & str3 & str4
str1 = String.Concat(str2,str3,str4)

They both evaluate to string.concat.

When building a string in a loop, the StringBuilder then becomes handy.


str2 & str3 & str4 will not create multiple copies of strings.

But &= will create string copies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

No, no, no.

I've spent days looking over this in detail in the past. And days arguing over this. Look at ILDASM for this.

When joining multiple hardcoded strings, using the & is better.

Dim str As String = "str1" & "str2" & "str3" & "str4"

The strings are joined at compile time. No copying.

---

You'd never join two string literals together anyway though. That was just an over-simplified example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

When joining multiple variable strings, then & is the same as string.concat.

str1 = str2 & str3 & str4
str1 = String.Concat(str2,str3,str4)

They both evaluate to string.concat.

---

That I wasn't aware of, but it certainly does make sense.

I know it's a simplified example but I often see it in blogs as substitutes. I think that's what leads to the entire string concatenation confusion. I often call it the 'string concatefusion' but that phrase hasn't amused anyone yet. (Hint)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mendhak

I often call it the 'string concatefusion' but that phrase hasn't amused anyone yet. (Hint)

---

Consistency is good... usually. ;)

I think I could speculate at length as to why that phrase hasn't amused anyone. It really is worth some speculation, as it suggests something about how the brain processes syllables, but that would be too wildly off topic, though I hope to start a thread on some learning issues one of these months.

I'm surprised that the compiler is sharp enough to swap in concat to improve efficiency, but I think that when I ran a test between stringbuilder and the & operator, I used a couple &= lines, rather than a multiple & line, so I was testing only one case, and would have seen something different had I tested differently. However, I'm currently feeling too mellow and lethargic to go back and see what difference it makes in real time. It has been a very energetic day, and I'm currently about as relaxed as I can be while still remaining awake. It was a nice thing to note, though.