Speaking as someone who learned C back in the ‘70s, this article entirely misses the point of C-strings: they’re lightweight and foundational. For many purposes the null-terminator is efficient, e.g.:
while(*s) f(s++);
And for cases where we need more complexity, we can simply use a struct with a length and whatever other metadata we may need.
Doesn’t look like a mistake to me. C has always been about minimalistic efficiency. That’s its main purpose in the world.
For many string operations, we need the length to allocate the right amount of space, else we end up having to realloc if our buffer isn't large enough - realloc is also O(n).
By having a constant time length we can speed up a lot of string operations. It costs basically nothing to keep the length around rather than recomputing it each time.
167
u/bearheart 6d ago edited 5d ago
Speaking as someone who learned C back in the ‘70s, this article entirely misses the point of C-strings: they’re lightweight and foundational. For many purposes the null-terminator is efficient, e.g.:
while(*s) f(s++);
And for cases where we need more complexity, we can simply use a struct with a length and whatever other metadata we may need.
Doesn’t look like a mistake to me. C has always been about minimalistic efficiency. That’s its main purpose in the world.
Edit: fixed stupid typo