Re: Q: type ... is new String

[Brian Drummond <brian@shapes.demon.co.uk>]

On Wed, 30 May 2012 16:33:45 +0000, tmoran wrote:

> Any comments on the effectiveness of using multiple types for different
> categories of strings, rather than "String" all the time?

A comment from a different angle...

Some time ago, http://www.joelonsoftware.com/ was recommended to me as a 
good "inside voice" on (specifically C and C++) programming practice. And 
I started to enjoy these articles and agree with some of his points...

Until I read
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/Wrong.html

specifically this quote from a section oddly titled "The Real Solution"...

"All strings that come from the user must be stored in variables (or 
database columns) with a name starting with the prefix "us" (for Unsafe 
String). All strings that have been HTML encoded or which came from a 
known-safe location must be stored in variables with a name starting with 
the prefix "s" (for Safe string)."

Now it seems to me that he would be better off saying
"type UnsafeString is new String;" 
and bypassing the rest of that (rather long) article entirely. And let 
the compiler catch the problems instead of uglifying the entire codebase  
so that he can tell programmers (I kid you not, it's a direct quote from 
the article!) "I know, it’s a little bit hard to see the wrong code at 
first, but do this for three weeks, and your eyes will adapt ..."

Three weeks? Jeez. And you know that's just the tip of the iceberg. 
What's wrong with just letting the compiler find the wrong code?

Now, we can debate the relative merits of "is new String" versus "is new 
Array <> of Character" but how do we get the message out there that 
recognized industry experts (and I'm not quoting "expert" because I 
believe he is, in his field) are recommending "Real Solutions" that 
impose weeks of painful and unnecessary work on unsuspecting programmers 
for ... what purpose? what gain?

Or am I missing something in that article?

- Brian