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: "Tarjei T. Jensen" <tarjei.jensen@kvaerner.com>
Subject: Re: C vs. Ada - strings
Date: 2000/05/03
Message-ID: <8eons4$sqj4@ftp.kvaerner.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 618606660
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
References: <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
 <wccg0s066nn.fsf@world.std.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2120.0
Organization: Kv�rner Group IT
Mime-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-03T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Robert A Duff wrote in message ...
>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!

Whether strings suck is a matter of how easy it is to work with them, not the
number of fancy operations you can perform on them.


I'm not too keen on ada strings. I think the problem is that they do not work
the way programmers want them to work.

UCSD-Pascal (turbo pascal) got it right, Ada didn't. Ada  has a lot of other
things that is right. To a degree that compensates for what is not so
wonderful.

Greetings,