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=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,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: mike@t
Subject: Re: C vs. Ada - strings
Date: 2000/05/19
Message-ID: <8g53vk$1f32@drn.newsguy.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 625644421
References: <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
 <8en5o9$ihe$1@nnrp1.deja.com> <8eonos$e70$1@wanadoo.fr>
 <yec1z3jkq9z.fsf@king.cts.com> <1fIU4.4668$Rx3.250161@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>
 <3924B730.AFB52C1C@acenet.com.au>
Organization: test
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

In article <3924B730.AFB52C1C@acenet.com.au>, Geoff says...

>
>Pete wrote:
>> java strings are much better.

>Only some aspects are better, many are much worse!
>E.g., they're horribly slow, especially if you need to change them -
>since they're immutable you have to create a new one.
>(Being immutable allows getting substrings to be fast, among other
>things).

being immutable also means you can not modify them ;)

>A StringBuffer only partially solves this problem.

how so? what is wrong with StringBuffer? (please, no performance
stuff, Java is pretty fast these days, almost as fast as C++ and C
for most applications).

only problem I see with java stringbuffers, is that it is easier to
convert them to arrays first whenever you need to do scanning
and replacments on them. it is always easier to write a[i], than
a.elementAt(i), etc.. then covert the array back to string at the end.

other than that, they are ok.

mike