NotRocketSurgery: Strings in C++

Strings in C++

kit — Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:02:09 -0400

Using programming languages such as Ruby and Python (freedom languages?) in order to gain an advantage over over those stuck in the past is sometimes an everyday choice. Here's a list to remind you of why you chose as you did.

"I'm so sad"
L"I'm so sad"
W"I'm so sad"
OLESTR("I'm so sad")
SysAllocString(L"I'm so sad")
_T("I'm so sad")
_TEXT("I'm so sad")
BSTR
CAtlString
CAtlStringA
CAtlStringW
CComBSTR
CSimpleStringT
CString
CStringA
CStringT
CStringW
DBTYPE_BSTR
DBTYPE_STR
DBTYPE_WSTR
LPCSTR
LPCTSTR
LPCWSTR
LPOLESTR
LPSTR
LPTSTR
LPWSTR
OLECHAR
System::String
TCHAR
_bstr_t
basic_string<char>
basic_string<wchar_t>
char *
std::string
std::wstring
wchar_t *

These all essentially mean "string" in C++. This list is by no means comprehensive.

"Strings in C++" by face

Wed, 16 Aug 2006 02:24:33 -0400

The many string implementations is a real problem in C++ – think about it from a library perspective. I want to provide you some library that works with strings, but I want to do so as conveniently to you as possible. In order to do, I have to use your matching String implementation. This is simply not possible when you want your library to be used by many different people in many different environments.

In such a case I chose the lowest common denominator would work best – ye ol’ char* – doesn’t mean I was happy about it.

"Strings in C++" by name

Sun, 13 Aug 2006 23:00:17 -0400

wow lets stop the flame war before it starts.. this is pointless.

"Strings in C++" by Scott D. Strader

Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:22:41 -0400

No, complaining that you have to “deal” with a chosen framework’s implementations just shows how misguided and uninformed language comparison can be. Phrakture’s right: that list is basically a collection of Microsoft wrappers for either Win32, OLE, COM, or C libraries. If you’re coding in one of those domains, either use the implementations that are given, find a 3rd-party implementation that is more C++ compliant (many elegant libraries exist), or write your own. The option to complain in order to try to start a language war would be better served if there was at least meaningful argument to back it up.

"Strings in C++" by bla@blabla.com

Sun, 13 Aug 2006 19:11:33 -0400

You do realize that Ruby, Java, Perl, PHP, Pyton etc etc all are written in C/C++ for a reason? I don’t think anyone sane would bootstrap ruby with ruby. Maybe we should hope C stick around for a while longer so simple (as in not smart) developers like yourself have a scripting language to play with in the first place.

"Strings in C++" by yeahbut

Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:50:24 -0400

The point is: being stuck in the world of C++ and having to “deal” with the lack of basic data types, like strings, just shows the age of the language. C/C++ will be around for systems programming for a while to come, but modern, dynamically typed languages are fun and simple simple simple.

"Strings in C++" by phrakture

Sun, 13 Aug 2006 18:43:51 -0400

Wrong. There is only one string type in C++. That is std::basic_string<...>.

Your list include std::string and std::wstring which are typedefs of basic_string. All the other string types listed are proprietary and/or left for C support (char*).

Most of your string types are microsoft specific, and in no way part of C++.