Why String?
-
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".
-
On order thanks.
VS2010/Atmel Studio 6.0 ToDo Manager Extension
Version 3.0 now available. There is no place like 127.0.0.1 -
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 next project I start or join on the "ground floor" will ban String/Text as a datatype. Everything declared as a String could and should have a more descriptive data type. Which API is more descriptive? assign(String, String) OR assign(EmployeeId, DepartmentId)
-
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".
-
Back in the day, Computers were made of rope and wood , and each character was knotted onto a length of string. Sometimes the string would unravel. Hence the early programmers mantra - did it compile? I'm a frayed knot.
MVVM# - See how I did MVVM my way ___________________________________________ Man, you're a god. - walterhevedeich 26/05/2011 .\\axxx (That's an 'M')
-
'Back in the day, A$ was even pronounced, "A-string."' Absolute intercoursing-bullshit.
Michael K Gray wrote:
Absolute intercoursing-bullsh*t.
I see your bullsh*t and raise you a pile of horsesh*t Whilst possibly not quite as old long term developer as you I learnt basic in around 81 and remember that A$ was always pronounced A String So whilst it may be a slight exaggeration to say that it was always known that way it certainly was a common way to talk about it. Even on this side of the pond
-
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?
-
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?)
Then there are people like me who never heard of it pronounced that way until we read it here. In the DEC world it seemed be pronounced A-dollar. A% was pronounced A-percent on those rare times when one couldn't tell from the context whether we meant an integer or floating-point variable. Perhaps it's an architecture difference; those of us who started in the mini world vs. those who started in the micro world.
