2 ms·
I think the concern was conserving memory ( which was scarce back then) and not iterating through each substring.
by dh2022 7mo ago
I think the concern was conserving memory ( which was scarce back then) and not iterating through each substring.
- delta_p_delta_x 7mo agoI am very sceptical about that. Much safer and cleaner languages like ML and Lisp were contemporary to C, and were equally developed on memory-scarce hardware.
- kelnos 7mo agoThey were also comparatively slow, no? And their runtimes used up much more of that scarce memory than a C program did.
- theamk 7mo agoMaybe on the high-end machines in some fancy lab somewhere? All I saw were 386's and 486's, and I am pretty sure every piece of software I ever used was either C or Turbo Pascal or direct assembly. In the mid-90s, Java appeared and I remember how horribly slow those Java apps were compared to C/Pascal code.
- priceishere 7mo agoBut does it even conserve memory? Copying a string when you have the length is 2 bytes of machine code on x86 (rep movsb). Remember, code takes up memory too.