From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,f868292008c639ce X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Wes Groleau Subject: Re: C vs. Ada - strings Date: 2000/05/03 Message-ID: <3910642C.19587F27@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 618777120 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> X-Accept-Language: en,es,fr,pt Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: news@ext.ray.com X-Trace: bos-service2.ext.raytheon.com 957375537 151.168.144.162 (Wed, 03 May 2000 13:38:57 EDT) Organization: Raytheon Company MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 03 May 2000 13:38:57 EDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-03T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: > > > In fact, C-style strings are quite primitive, and quite painful to work > > > with, even compared to Ada 83 strings. > > > > Two offices adjoining mine are occupied by persons > > fond of saying "Ada strings suck" Much as I prefer > > Ada in general, if it weren't for the Ada 95 string > > packages, I'd have to agree with them on this point. > > But surely not as compared to C! If you say Ada strings suck compared > to, say, Java or Smalltalk or Common Lisp, I could agree. But C strings > are far worse than Ada strings in pretty much every regard. Even just > Ada 83! Perhaps one needs to clarify "C strings are ... painful to work with." I agree. BUT, as clumsy as the C string functions are, at least they existed. Ada 83 had NO standard string handling features. -- Wes Groleau http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau