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: Ole-Hjalmar Kristensen Subject: Re: C vs. Ada - strings Date: 2000/05/04 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 619105505 Sender: ohk@gong2.clustra.com References: <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> <8en5o9$ihe$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Complaints-To: abuse@telia.no X-Trace: news.telia.no 957440879 195.204.160.194 (Thu, 04 May 2000 13:47:59 CEST) Organization: Telia Internet Public Access NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 04 May 2000 13:47:59 CEST Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 2000-05-04T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: Ted Dennison writes: > In article <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>, > Wes Groleau wrote: > > > > > In fact, C-style strings are quite primitive, and quite painful to work > > > with, even compared to Ada 83 strings. > > > > Two offices adjoining mine are occupied by persons > > fond of saying "Ada strings suck" Much as I prefer > > Ada in general, if it weren't for the Ada 95 string > > packages, I'd have to agree with them on this point. > > "if it weren't for the ...string packages"? Without the string handling > functions in C's standard library, C strings suck even worse.... > > -- > T.E.D. Yes, but the C standard library *is* there. The Ada 95 string packages aren't there in Ada 83. > > http://www.telepath.com/~dennison/Ted/TED.html > > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy. -- E pluribus Unix