Re: is ada dead?

["Marin David Condic" <marin.condic.auntie.spam@pacemicro.com>]

The nice thing about Ada is that you can readily convert between the two
type and possibly utilize the Bounded_String type as a compromise. For most
of the things I do I use Unbounded_String because its fairly easy to move
them around, append things, etc. A lot of string manipulation doesn't
involve much editing, but does involve keeping track of length and/or moving
the data from place to place. Unbounded_String makes this very easy by not
having a static allocation & it is probably tolerably efficient for most
stuff. If you *do* need to do some sort of heavy editing & a static
allocation is more efficient, its pretty easy to hop into a subroutine that
allocates a static string of the right size, convert the Unbounded_String,
do the editing and go back. Of course, the necessity of doing this is
probably pretty rare (relative to the total amount of string handling code
that might exist in an app) and will be implementation dependent (some
compilers may be more efficient with it than others.) On the whole, its just
a matter of making the best use of the tools available & Ada certainly has a
lot of tools in this area.

MDC
--
Marin David Condic
Senior Software Engineer
Pace Micro Technology Americas    www.pacemicro.com
Enabling the digital revolution
e-Mail:    marin.condic@pacemicro.com
Web:      http://www.mcondic.com/


"Stephen J. Bevan" <stephen_bevan@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:m31yns3s9v.fsf@yahoo.com...
> Do you mean String or an Unbounded_String?  IMHO a Java StringBuffer
> has very similar properties to an Ada Unbounded_String.  If you want
> an equivalent of an Ada String, then the best approximation would be
> char[] in Java.
>
>