Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

10
  • 8
    Special cases add astonishment. Commented Apr 2, 2013 at 21:13
  • 17
    Strings were a luxury in 1995? Really?? Look at the history of computer languages. The number of languages that had some type of string at the time would far outnumber those that did not. How many languages besides C and it's descendents used null terminated arrays? Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 0:27
  • 15
    @WarrenT: Sure, some (if not most) languages had some type of string, but Unicode-capable, garbage-collected strings were a novelty in 1995, I think. For example, Python introduced Unicode strings with version 2.0, year 2000. Choosing immutability was also a controversial choice at that time. Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 6:14
  • 3
    @JoonasPulakka Then maybe you should edit your answer to say that. Because as it stands, the “total luxury” part of your answer is quite wrong. Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 18:45
  • 1
    Interning has a cost: you get a string that will never ever be deallocated. (Well, not unless you use your own interning engine that you can throw away.) Commented Apr 3, 2013 at 19:10