Javascript StringBuilder for Beginners (ASP.NET 3.5 and above)

To follow the culinary model, why use a 'Death Star' to crack a peanut? We're not going to agree, so let's leave it there.

I think I already answered your question. Yours is an alternate solution, but does your question sounds like one should not use asp.net's string builder?, then I completely disagree. It is just a usability choice to get a plum cake though you point to a chocolate cake. The main idea of Asp.net ajax framework is bring the server side controls accessible at client side as well and use the same syntax style. If one knows c# then they can follow the same style at javascript. Such a novel idea is expressed in string builder class. My tip already having the header saying it is for asp.net users so string builder syntax is more familiar than native javascripts.

As you said "If OOP purity is your requirement, then create a stringBuilder class based on the above". sys,StringBuilder doing the same plus in a c#/ .Net friendly way. Did you read the last line of my tip? Sometimes I can eat whatever available ready than I myself become the baker man.

What is the problem you think depend on asp.net in a asp.net page? At client side everything rendered as html and native javascript (specifically oops oriented). Somebody tell you asp.net independent solution, but all their aspx pages has 100s of server controls. Is that means only javascript should be independent?!. In contrast it is friendly than do native javascript for a .Net developer.

Let us take a few examples...
var sb = new Sys.StringBuilder();
sb.append("Hello World ");
sb.append(String.format("You are now {0} years old", 5));
sb.append(String.format("I got {0:c} ", 50));
sb.append(String.format("I got dollors {0:n} ", 1200));
This style is not unfamiliar to a .Net programmer. But how you cook it in native javascript? May be you know elegant ways. But not a .Net developer.

So consider your tip as alternative. Ofcourse your tip has advantages. But don't keep on knocking "Why not simply". Simply not means something what the computer easily understand, but what people easily understand. Ajax library is one of the novel approach for .Net developers to do things in the .Net way.

Why somebody create a jQuery framework when everything possible by a native javascript. Same way stringbuilder is a framework class. My idea is just expose it to the beginner .Net developers. What is wrong in it. Why they must use native javascript?

Reason for my vote of 5
Good solution.

Reason for my vote of 5
Practical alternative with some good points about extended usage (e.g., no dependency on ASP.NET).

To answer your question "why not", the implementation of the Sys.StringBuilder *might* use a char array rather than an array of strings to internally store the string as it is built. This may be more space-efficient. It is also a nice place to encapsulate functionality to string building, such as the appendLine and isEmpty functions. The StringBuilder also hides the implementation details, so they could be changed later on (e.g., they could optimize memory by using a SlimList rather than an array) without having to change the code that makes use of StringBuilder.

The question "Why not" is not relevant. Your method has advantage, little faster and cross browser compatible. So it is an alternative. The basic difference is object oriented programing and classical coding. StringBuilder class is object oriented and extensible. So you could expect add on methods in feature. So your question like is simply "why jQuery why not simply javascript"

No, my question is why create a dependency on ASP and AJAX at all when there's really no need to? If OOP purity is your requirement, then create a stringBuilder class based on the above, which is then OO and extensible. In fact, I since found some examples where others have done just that. E.g.: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/ajax/JavascriptStringBuilderEx.aspx

Javascript StringBuilder for Beginners (ASP.NET 3.5 and above)

License

Comments and Discussions