5 ms·

Where do you get the idea that the author is ranting against strings in C? I don't see it.

goldenkey 13y ago
He's ranting against repeated function calls. Same could be said for any other language. The only interesting thing here is that strlen is the main way to get the length of a string in C, unlike OOP languages that will have a .length accessor that usually keeps the last validated length for o(1) access. That doesn't mean C is subterranean leveled.. it just means the language isn't OOP .. use a lib/struct/functions and the problem is solved. I see this as a baseless attack on C's lack of OOP through some clever bashing.
- mbel 13y ago
  Storing length with pointer to array has nothing to do with OOP, strings can be defined as simple records (aka structs, product types) you don't need OOP for that: struct string_t { const char * buffer; int lenght }; And really, I fail to see any attack on C in this article, it only mentions what a naive programmer might do, and why he/she shouldn't.
  - goldenkey 13y ago
    That still would not solve the issue as you'd manually be updating length when you modified your string. This is why instead of rolling your own lib, it's probably better to use the existing dynamically allocated C string libs out there to take care of it. Right, all the libs use a struct, as there are no first-class objects in C.
    - mbel 13y ago
      Actually I would prefer to write the length at creation time and don't mutate the string at all (and yes I'm aware that the line of code above is quite far from ensuring immutability); afaik most of those "OOP languages" use immutable strings. But yes, you are absolutely right in most cases using existing libraries is superior solution to any own, rolled-out-just-a-second-ago implementation of string; I used it only to demonstrate that storing length with a buffer address is hardly a OOP technique.
      - goldenkey 13y ago
        Here's how you'd do that mbel: const char[] str = "This is a string"; int len = sizeof(str) / sizeof(str[0]); Compile-time..still not dynamic immutability though. The array pointer can't change, the buffer size can't change, and the char components are const. Immutable but then again, you can violate that quite easily. And it's only compile-time immutability, which isn't all that great.
- icodestuff 13y ago
  I'm reading it, and I'm rereading it, and I'm just not seeing that. In fact, I see the author going to great pains to point out that there really are times you want to depend on the non-hoisted conditional behavior of C. This is a heads up, not a "OMG C is teh worst language EVAR!" rant, not even a subtle one.

He's ranting against repeated function calls. Same could be said for any other language. The only interesting thing here is that strlen is the main way to get the length of a string in C, unlike OOP languages that will have a .length accessor that usually keeps the last validated length for o(1) access. That doesn't mean C is subterranean leveled.. it just means the language isn't OOP .. use a lib/struct/functions and the problem is solved. I see this as a baseless attack on C's lack of OOP through some clever bashing.

mbel 13y ago
Storing length with pointer to array has nothing to do with OOP, strings can be defined as simple records (aka structs, product types) you don't need OOP for that: struct string_t { const char * buffer; int lenght }; And really, I fail to see any attack on C in this article, it only mentions what a naive programmer might do, and why he/she shouldn't.
- goldenkey 13y ago
  That still would not solve the issue as you'd manually be updating length when you modified your string. This is why instead of rolling your own lib, it's probably better to use the existing dynamically allocated C string libs out there to take care of it. Right, all the libs use a struct, as there are no first-class objects in C.
  - mbel 13y ago
    Actually I would prefer to write the length at creation time and don't mutate the string at all (and yes I'm aware that the line of code above is quite far from ensuring immutability); afaik most of those "OOP languages" use immutable strings. But yes, you are absolutely right in most cases using existing libraries is superior solution to any own, rolled-out-just-a-second-ago implementation of string; I used it only to demonstrate that storing length with a buffer address is hardly a OOP technique.
    - goldenkey 13y ago
      Here's how you'd do that mbel: const char[] str = "This is a string"; int len = sizeof(str) / sizeof(str[0]); Compile-time..still not dynamic immutability though. The array pointer can't change, the buffer size can't change, and the char components are const. Immutable but then again, you can violate that quite easily. And it's only compile-time immutability, which isn't all that great.
icodestuff 13y ago
I'm reading it, and I'm rereading it, and I'm just not seeing that. In fact, I see the author going to great pains to point out that there really are times you want to depend on the non-hoisted conditional behavior of C. This is a heads up, not a "OMG C is teh worst language EVAR!" rant, not even a subtle one.