Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!munnari.oz.au!goanna!ok
From: ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.fortran
Subject: Re: f2c experiences? (really C vs fortran strings)
Message-ID: <4381@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au>
Date: 27 Nov 90 09:20:04 GMT
References: <1990Nov25.204354.12324@ariel.unm.edu> <28393@usc> <16414@cgl.ucsf.EDU>
Organization: Comp Sci, RMIT, Melbourne, Australia
Lines: 20

In article <16414@cgl.ucsf.EDU>, seibel@cgl.ucsf.edu (George Seibel) writes:
> In article <28393@usc> ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:

> >I'm not used to thinking of fortran as being a place to do
> >string handling! :-)

> I think the most persistent myth in all of computing is the superiority
> of C over fortran for string handling.

I'll challenge that.  I reckon the most persistent myth is that string
handling is a good thing.  Structured information should be stored as
trees &c, not as strings.

I can, however, testify that it took me five days to do in C (two weeks
after I started using C) to do what it had taken a friend five months
to do with PL/I (Fortran character variables are a restriction of PL/I).
How come?  Because C *hasn't* got strings, but *has* got the tools you
need to build what you want.  Strings are the (tar) pits.
-- 
I am not now and never have been a member of Mensa.		-- Ariadne.