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: Charles Hixson Subject: Re: C vs. Ada - strings Date: 2000/05/04 Message-ID: <3911ADEA.5C9BCBC1@earthlink.net>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 619214042 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit References: <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <8eons4$sqj4@ftp.kvaerner.com> <8es4gh$3ms$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Accept-Language: en Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net X-Trace: newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net 957459947 198.94.156.19 (Thu, 04 May 2000 10:05:47 PDT) Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net MIME-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 10:05:47 PDT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Robert Dewar wrote: > ... > > Personally, I think the string packages in Ada are far more > flexible and useful than those in Turbo Pascal, for many > reasons (in particular the lack of control over heap > allocation), but it would be interesting to be more specific > about what *you* personally don't like, than making general > statements with no basis about what all programmers like :-) > .... But the real improvement of Ada Strings over TurboPascal strings is that if you don't like the current implementation, it's easier to define your own (without loss of capability).