Why String?
-
C'mon, cut him some slack.
The difficult we do right away... ...the impossible takes slightly longer.
Thanks, I can't get tied up at the moment.
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
I once read in a book, which was about learning C programming, that the name string was chosen because in C there is no text data type, but an array of characters. An array could be seen as a "chain" of characters, or a "string" of characters (one right after the other). In Spanish, by the way, the name is "cadena de caracteres" which translates to "character chain" rather than string. Don't know if this is true though.
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
Because you could never tell how long it is. Cheers ;P Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994.
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
Because even the best C programmers end up hanging themselves with them at some point in time.
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
AspDotNetDev wrote:
they are strings/sequences of digits
No they're not -- unless you use ToString.
AspDotNetDev wrote:
Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
Because in BASIC they are designated by a $ which is a lot like an S and they who use BASIC are hard to teach.
-
I think it's an unconscious desire to return to the good old days of BASIC where a variable was identified as containing text characters by using the suffix $. The art of programming has never recovered from the damage done by constructs like, >10 DATA "MY", "TEXT", "DATA" >20 READ A$, B$, C$ >30 LPRINT A$, B$, C$ >50 GOTO 10 >9999 END >RUN Back in the day, A$ was even pronounced, "A-string." :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
Oh my eyes.....noooooooooooo
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
Sounds like quite the yarn. :)
Hope I pulled the wool over your eyes ;)
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
My first acquaintance with "strings" was in the pre-computer days (early eighties, in India - there were no or very very few computers then; the nearest one was a Casio calculator), when we did physics experiments with standing waves or stationary waves. We had to find nodes, also called stationary points. So, when I had to first program with strings using MFC, it took some time to unlearn the wave part, and get used to strings within quotes.
-
I think it's an unconscious desire to return to the good old days of BASIC where a variable was identified as containing text characters by using the suffix $. The art of programming has never recovered from the damage done by constructs like, >10 DATA "MY", "TEXT", "DATA" >20 READ A$, B$, C$ >30 LPRINT A$, B$, C$ >50 GOTO 10 >9999 END >RUN Back in the day, A$ was even pronounced, "A-string." :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
It's like inverted PHP! My eyes!! :)
- S 50 cups of coffee and you know it's on! Code, follow, or get out of the way.
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
It is according to the Grand Unified Theory of Programming, a string can store all the values of any plain old data(POD)! Also known as the String Theory of programming. This is why text type is known as string!
-
Oh my eyes.....noooooooooooo
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
I think it's an unconscious desire to return to the good old days of BASIC where a variable was identified as containing text characters by using the suffix $. The art of programming has never recovered from the damage done by constructs like, >10 DATA "MY", "TEXT", "DATA" >20 READ A$, B$, C$ >30 LPRINT A$, B$, C$ >50 GOTO 10 >9999 END >RUN Back in the day, A$ was even pronounced, "A-string." :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
I feel toddler bliss again!
FILETIME to time_t
| FoldWithUs! | sighist | WhoIncludes - Analyzing C++ include file hierarchy -
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
The first computers used quipus[^] as storage media.
Light moves faster than sound. That is why some people appear bright, until you hear them speak. List of common misconceptions
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
Because by the time you've got through:
Dim A as String
A = "M"
A = A & "a"
A = A & "r"
A = A & "i"
A = A & "j"
A = A & "u"
A = A & "a"
A = A & "n"
A = A & "a"You're strung out.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
I was just thinking that it seems a bit odd that "string" is so commonly used by programmers to refer to some text. I would think "text" would be more appropriate. If we are using "string" just because it refers to a string of characters (aka, a sequence of characters), then why not also call numbers "strings" (as they are strings/sequences of digits and some other characters)? Any theories as to why "string" prevailed?
-
I think it's an unconscious desire to return to the good old days of BASIC where a variable was identified as containing text characters by using the suffix $. The art of programming has never recovered from the damage done by constructs like, >10 DATA "MY", "TEXT", "DATA" >20 READ A$, B$, C$ >30 LPRINT A$, B$, C$ >50 GOTO 10 >9999 END >RUN Back in the day, A$ was even pronounced, "A-string." :-D
Will Rogers never met me.
'Back in the day, A$ was even pronounced, "A-string."' Absolute intercoursing-bullshit.
-
'Back in the day, A$ was even pronounced, "A-string."' Absolute intercoursing-bullshit.
-
Everybody every programmer I knew pronounced it that way. Even professional Fortran and Cobol programmers recognised the convention from their early Basic days. (Who didn't learn programming via Basic?)
I did not learn programming from BASIC, for one. As it has not been invented when I learned programming. Is that a valid answer? I accept your correction that you are not aware of any BASIC programmer who did not pronounce it "that way". But that is not my lookout. I began with FORTRAN, an a CDC6600. I subsequently learned BASIC from its inception, and made a large portion of my long professional career from programming in it. But, I have NEVER heard of this vocalisation until you raised it. I have been a professional FORTRAN programmer since 1973, and a COBOL programmer since 1975. Yet I do not recognise this so-called 'convention' in one fraction of an iota. Not with me, nor any of my compartriates. Strange, that. I still call "bovine faeces".
