I recall getting a scolding for concatenating Strings in Python once upon a time. I was told that it is more efficient to create an List of Strings in Python and join them later
Yes, it's the same principle. I remember a ProjectEuler puzzle where I tried it both ways, calling join is much faster.
If you check out the Ruby source, join is implemented all in C, it's going to be a lot faster than concatenating strings (no intermediate object creation, no garbage collection):
/*
* call-seq:
* array.join(sep=$,) -> str
*
* Returns a string created by converting each element of the array to
* a string, separated by sep.
*
* [ "a", "b", "c" ].join #=> "abc"
* [ "a", "b", "c" ].join("-") #=> "a-b-c"
*/
static VALUE
rb_ary_join_m(argc, argv, ary)
int argc;
VALUE *argv;
VALUE ary;
{
VALUE sep;
rb_scan_args(argc, argv, "01", &sep);
if (NIL_P(sep)) sep = rb_output_fs;
return rb_ary_join(ary, sep);
}
where rb_ary_join is:
VALUE rb_ary_join(ary, sep)
VALUE ary, sep;
{
long len = 1, i;
int taint = Qfalse;
VALUE result, tmp;
if (RARRAY(ary)->len == 0) return rb_str_new(0, 0);
if (OBJ_TAINTED(ary) || OBJ_TAINTED(sep)) taint = Qtrue;
for (i=0; ilen; i++) {
tmp = rb_check_string_type(RARRAY(ary)->ptr[i]);
len += NIL_P(tmp) ? 10 : RSTRING(tmp)->len;
}
if (!NIL_P(sep)) {
StringValue(sep);
len += RSTRING(sep)->len * (RARRAY(ary)->len - 1);
}
result = rb_str_buf_new(len);
for (i=0; ilen; i++) {
tmp = RARRAY(ary)->ptr[i];
switch (TYPE(tmp)) {
case T_STRING:
break;
case T_ARRAY:
if (tmp == ary || rb_inspecting_p(tmp)) {
tmp = rb_str_new2("[...]");
}
else {
VALUE args[2];
args[0] = tmp;
args[1] = sep;
tmp = rb_protect_inspect(inspect_join, ary, (VALUE)args);
}
break;
default:
tmp = rb_obj_as_string(tmp);
}
if (i > 0 && !NIL_P(sep))
rb_str_buf_append(result, sep);
rb_str_buf_append(result, tmp);
if (OBJ_TAINTED(tmp)) taint = Qtrue;
}
if (taint) OBJ_TAINT(result);
return result;
}