Strings

[RTOAL@lmumail.lmu.edu (Ray Toal)]

I was impressed by Robert Firth's note in response to the claim made
by a previous poster who claimed

  *p++ = *q++

is more readable than

  loop
    P(I_ := Q(I);
    I := I + 1;
    ...

Rober said a real Ada programmer would write

  P := Q;

True! Touche!  Ada is more terse and more readable than C on this one!

To be fair to the C folks, C++ now features a "language-defined"
string class, so one string can be assigned to another with "=":

  s1 = s2;

My concern is with many in the C "culture" who would probably avoid
the use of this class and stick with "char*"s, on account of some
probable (real or imagined) loss of efficiency.  The vastly improved
clarity of program text that deals with complex objects as single
entities (as opposed to constantly fiddling with their internals)
is a strong point of Ada and a reason why Ada programs are more
readable and far less error prone.

At least the C++ "committee" is realizing this.  Perhaps some day
we can look forward to a **real** array class.  But of course, in C++,
if you WANT safe arrays or safe pointers, you can always code them
yourself.

My preference is to have safety by default, as in Ada, and be specific
when I need Unchecked things.

Ray Toal