Xref: utzoo comp.lang.eiffel:286 comp.lang.c++:3726
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!aiai!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.eiffel,comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Message-ID: <544@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Jun 89 15:44:41 GMT
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP> <148@eiffel.UUCP> <89155.092349UH2@PSUVM>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.uucp (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 14

In article <89155.092349UH2@PSUVM> UH2@PSUVM.BITNET (Lee Sailer) writes:
>the address, and thus cannot optimize well.  The same argument has
>been made about strings---C does NOT have a string type.  We fake it
>with pointers (addresses) and arrays (pointers 8-).  In a language
>that does have a specific string data type, the compiler writer has
>a chance to do some optimization tricks otherwise not available.

I think this may be a more complex issue than it at first appears.
Richard O'Keefe has argued on several occasions that string processing
is more efficient when there isn't a built-in string type.  I'm not
sure he's correct, but he generally knows what he's talking about.

(I'm sorry I don't have any "real" references -- there were just
some articles in Comp.lang.c (I think) and Comp.lang.prolog.)