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: Robert A Duff <bobduff@world.std.com>
Subject: Re: C vs. Ada - strings
Date: 2000/05/02
Message-ID: <wccg0s066nn.fsf@world.std.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 618409030
Sender: bobduff@world.std.com (Robert A Duff)
References: <390F0D93.F835FAD9@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com>
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 2000-05-02T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>

Wes Groleau <wwgrol@ftw.rsc.raytheon.com> writes:

> > 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.

But surely not as compared to C!  If you say Ada strings suck compared
to, say, Java or Smalltalk or Common Lisp, I could agree.  But C strings
are far worse than Ada strings in pretty much every regard.  Even just
Ada 83!

- Bob