On 2018-02-08, at 20:39:07, Tony Thigpen wrote: > Let me see if I can sum up the conversation: > > There is this high and mighty language call C++ to which all other languages > must strive to emulate, and, > any other language that does not handle strings the exact same way as C (and > variants) are sub-standard. > > And, to prove the point, the fact that IBM added some new instructions to > better handle null terminated strings means that IBM realized that null > terminated strings are the only real way to handle strings and they were > fixing a major defect. > > No consideration to the fact that just maybe IBM added the new instructions > because some young language was unable to adapt to any of the existing and > time-proven methods of handling strings? > > *Major light-bulb turning on* > It sounds like we have been spending too much time trying to talk logic with > a bunch of (apparent) Millennials. And everybody knows that such is > impossible. > Too much sarcasm. It's analogous to the ASCII-EBCDIC confrontation. I prefer ASCII, but EBCDIC, with no intrinsic superiority, has its proponents and is entrenched in its own dusty corner. I don't expect IBM to abandon it soon.
Likewise, I believe that null terminated strings are an inferior technology, but they'll long be with us. -- gil
