Hi, > The specification is buggy > in that it does not take into account the operating system interface > and makes correct memory management inefficient > for the benefit of sparing one byte per buffer > where an OS call is not needed. > Ridiculous. > The developers at Sun > found the correct way to interpreting the specification; > the other ones followed it blindfolded. It is now time to repent. > </quote> > > Wrong! Requiring null termimation will make things more inefficient. > This is because Strings within Java are not null-terminated.
Unless the VM stores all strings with 0-termination internally, which is possible, but arguably more inefficient on another level. > If I was updating the spec, I would change it so that if a copy is > returned it is always null terminated. If it isn't a copy then it may > or may not be. It's likely no VMs will need changing, as I suspect > the ones that do not null-terminate are returning direct pointers > (e.g. JamVM). Maybe we should all go to the original old bug (gosh! from 2001!) and make some noise? /Roman -- http://kennke.org/blog/
