🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Sep25.151958.7992@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
>In article <1992Sep24.200317.9278@genghis.borland.com> pete@genghis.borland.com (Pete Becker) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep22.191402.2352@ucc.su.OZ.AU> maxtal@extro.ucc.su.OZ.AU (John MAX Skaller) writes:
>>>
>>>	If you examine TV you'll see there's no string class, yet char*
>>>is used in many places. If you think about it that means such classes
>>>cant be copied, assigned or destroyed properly. Have a look at the
>>>way TDialog constructor works, its parameter is a list formed by + ing
>>>new'ed items together. What would happen if one of the items was static?
>>>Who knows?
>>>
>>
>>	In fact, an early internal version of TV did have a String class.
>>Turned out it was pretty useless, and introduced extra overhead every time
>>it was used, although the reference-counted version removed most of this
>>overhead.  But look at how those char *'s are used: almost all the time you're
>>passing around a char array that was passed to you in the first place.
>>Nothing is gained by using a String class.  Don't abandon C's efficiency just
>>to use some clever new tool!
>
>	Oh, please, can I quote you ?
>
>	"Nothing is gained by using a String class"
>

	Not without complete context.  We were, after all, talking about Turbo
Vision.

>My string class is my MOST useful class. It far outweighs all others.
>It does something magic: it works. Reliably. I cannot run off the
>end of a string, have a dangling char*, or any other such error.
>My strings are first class objects (use Copliens Orthodox Idiom).
>

	I agree, there are many situations in which a good String class is
a godsend.