August 13th, 2006

Strings in C++

by kit

Using programming languages such as Ruby and Python (freedom languages?) in order to gain an advantage over over those stuck in the past is sometimes an everyday choice. Here’s a list to remind you of why you chose as you did.

  • “I’m so sad”
  • L”I’m so sad”
  • W”I’m so sad”
  • OLESTR
  • SysAllocString(L”I’m so sad”)
  • \_T(“I’m so sad”)
  • \_TEXT(“I’m so sad”)
  • BSTR
  • CAtlString
  • CAtlStringA
  • CAtlStringW
  • CComBSTR
  • CSimpleStringT
  • CString
  • CStringA
  • CStringT
  • CStringW
  • DBTYPE\_BSTR
  • DBTYPE\_STR
  • DBTYPE\_WSTR
  • LPCSTR
  • LPCTSTR
  • LPCWSTR
  • LPOLESTR
  • LPSTR
  • LPTSTR
  • LPWSTR
  • OLECHAR
  • System::String
  • TCHAR
  • \_bstr\_t
  • basic\_string<char>
  • basic\_string<wchar\_t>
  • char *
  • std::string
  • std::wstring
  • wchar\_t *

These all essentially mean “string” in C++. This list is by no means comprehensive.

6 Responses to “Strings in C++”

  1. phrakture Says:
    August 13th, 2006 at 01:43 PM Wrong. There is only one string type in C++. That is std::basic_string<...>. Your list include std::string and std::wstring which are typedefs of basic_string. All the other string types listed are proprietary and/or left for C support (char*). Most of your string types are microsoft specific, and in no way part of C++.
  2. yeahbut Says:
    August 13th, 2006 at 01:50 PM The point is: being stuck in the world of C++ and having to "deal" with the lack of basic data types, like strings, just shows the age of the language. C/C++ will be around for systems programming for a while to come, but modern, dynamically typed languages are fun and simple simple simple.
  3. bla@blabla.com Says:
    August 13th, 2006 at 02:11 PM You do realize that Ruby, Java, Perl, PHP, Pyton etc etc all are written in C/C++ for a reason? I don't think anyone sane would bootstrap ruby with ruby. Maybe we should hope C stick around for a while longer so simple (as in not smart) developers like yourself have a scripting language to play with in the first place.
  4. Scott D. Strader Says:
    August 13th, 2006 at 02:22 PM No, complaining that you have to "deal" with a chosen framework's implementations just shows how misguided and uninformed language comparison can be. Phrakture's right: that list is basically a collection of Microsoft wrappers for either Win32, OLE, COM, or C libraries. If you're coding in one of those domains, either use the implementations that are given, find a 3rd-party implementation that is more C++ compliant (many elegant libraries exist), or write your own. The option to complain in order to try to start a language war would be better served if there was at least meaningful argument to back it up.
  5. name Says:
    August 13th, 2006 at 06:00 PM wow lets stop the flame war before it starts.. this is pointless.
  6. face Says:
    August 15th, 2006 at 09:24 PM The many string implementations is a real problem in C++ - think about it from a library perspective. I want to provide you some library that works with strings, but I want to do so as conveniently to you as possible. In order to do, I have to use your matching String implementation. This is simply not possible when you want your library to be used by many different people in many different environments. In such a case I chose the lowest common denominator would work best - ye ol' char* - doesn't mean I was happy about it.

Leave a Reply