XenoAmess

refined the tests. full jmh test at: https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/FhWRhHx6v6/ in short: ``` Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units StringUtilsNormalizeSpaceTest.testNew avgt 5 1732.831 ?127.293 ns/op StringUtilsNormalizeSpaceTest.testNew2 avgt 5 437.049 ? 29.495 ns/op...

@garydgregory rebased. please find some time to review. thanks.

full jmh result at https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/9GTwkT5cgR/ in short: ``` StringUtilsWrapTest.test00New avgt 5 6.636 ? 0.724 ns/op StringUtilsWrapTest.test00Old avgt 5 9.890 ? 4.562 ns/op StringUtilsWrapTest.test01New avgt 5 8.478 ? 0.679 ns/op StringUtilsWrapTest.test01Old...

@garydgregory rebased. please find some time to review. thanks.

I just think it use too many `String.valueOf` Is it really performance acceptable? I do think it it need a jmh...

> @XenoAmess Could you please be more descriptive? The only `String.valueOf` I have added are in high level methods, main logic does not. Actually I removed `String.valueOf` from loops. Sorry...

> Does not seem like a huge gain. Yes, it isn't.

> The JMH results are very long and obscure the thread of the PR. > > Is it possible to post just the summary inline, with a link to the...

As a result: I re-refine the codes and redone the jmh test. Sorry for the delay because I was quite busy yesterday, and the test takes too long time(several hours...

performance tests refined. thanks for help from @aherbert full test result at : https://pastebin.ubuntu.com/p/mC3wTgsCKT/ in short, ``` Benchmark Mode Cnt Score Error Units StringUtilsChompTest.test10_Random_Strings_New avgt 5 67574.592 ? 9156.972 ns/op...