Talk:String (computer science): Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:52, 21 March 2023

Latest revision as of 12:51, 11 August 2025

(13 intermediate revisions by 8 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|

{{WikiProject Computer science|class=start|importance=high}}

}}

{{afd-merged-from|String Buffer|String Buffer|04 June 2013}}

{{WikiProject Computer science|class=start|importance=high}}

{{annual readership}}

Line 150 ⟶ 152:

:I've changed the image to diagram a string. Though I haven't figured out how to make it the page image yet. [[User:TripleShortOfACycle|TripleShortOfACycle]] ([[User talk:TripleShortOfACycle|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/TripleShortOfACycle|contribs]]) - (she/her/hers) 14:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

::Now the page thumbnail works! It displays a diagram of a string when links to this page are hovered over. [[User:TripleShortOfACycle|TripleShortOfACycle]] ([[User talk:TripleShortOfACycle|talk]] - [[Special:Contributions/TripleShortOfACycle|contribs]]) - (she/her/hers) 14:30, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

== Distinct, unambiguous symbols ==

As far as I know, it is also required that each string can be uniquely decomposed into its symbols. For example, if the alphabet itself consists of strings (as in [[Free_monoid#Free_generators_and_rank]], or in the lead of [[Alphabet (formal languages)]], with Σ = {"0", "00"}), its symbols are distinct and unambiguous (as are the members of each mathematical set), but nevertheless, a string may be composed in different ways. I guess "unambiguous" is supposed to express the requirement of unique decomposition, but I'm not sure it is precise enough. The decomposition must be unambiguous, rather than just the symbols. - [[User:Jochen Burghardt|Jochen Burghardt]] ([[User talk:Jochen Burghardt|talk]]) 18:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

== Traditionally? ==

WRT "In computer programming, a string is traditionally a sequence of characters..." What does 'traditionally' imply? What does string mean in a non-traditional sense? How is traditionality relevant? IMO it is a sequence of chars (period). [[User:Stevebroshar|Stevebroshar]] ([[User talk:Stevebroshar|talk]]) 14:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

== String is not a data type ==

WRT "A string is generally considered as a data type"

Can't argue that string is a type of data, but string is not a [[data type]]. Maybe that's a subtle difference to some, but there's an important difference. String is a higher level concept than data type as it pertains to programming. Many programming contexts (i.e. languages) have a string data type (or multiple). But there's significant difference between string data and a type for string data.

To illustrate the difference between string data and data type, consider C. It has no string type. The most commonly used data type for string data is char*; pointer to char. That is not a string type, yet it is used for string data. Note that char* can be used for non-string data; a pointer to a single char storage, for example. FWIW, the [[data structure]] is called [[null-terminated string]] or c-string.

What is this article about? Is it about the concept of string in general (string data)? Or about particular data types in particular languages and contexts? I assume the intention is both. But, the two should not be conflated. It should say that a string is sequence of characters and that many languages define a type for string data. It should not say that string ''is'' a data type.

TBO this article provides little value and should be deleted, but I'm sure folks don't like that idea. But, if it's going to exist, it shouldn't misrepresent the world. [[User:Stevebroshar|Stevebroshar]] ([[User talk:Stevebroshar|talk]]) 13:19, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think you have a point here, and I tried to fix the lead accordingly. - [[User:Jochen Burghardt|Jochen Burghardt]] ([[User talk:Jochen Burghardt|talk]]) 16:18, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

: There are other languages than C. In some of them, strings are a native data type. You can make a similar argument about arrays. Citing a WP article to show that strings aren't a [[data type]] might carry more weight if that article didn't include them [[data type#String and text types]]. [[User:Andy Dingley|Andy Dingley]] ([[User talk:Andy Dingley|talk]]) 16:45, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

== String length ==

The description in {{alink||String length}} is overly simplistic and is incorrect for, e.g., [[PL/I]].

I propose changing {{blockquote|In general, there are two types of string datatypes: ''fixed-length strings'', which have a fixed maximum length to be determined at [[compile time]] and which use the same amount of memory whether this maximum is needed or not, and ''variable-length strings'', whose length is not arbitrarily fixed and which can use varying amounts of memory depending on the actual requirements at run time (see [[Memory management]]).}}

to {{blockquote|In general, there are three types of string datatypes: ''fixed-length strings'', which have a fixed length to be determined at [[compile time]] or [[block (programming)|block]] entry, ''variable-length strings'', which have a fixed maximum length to be determined at [[compile time]] or [[block (programming)|block]] entry and which use the same amount of memory whether this maximum is needed or not, and ''dynamic-length strings'', whose length is not arbitrarily fixed and which can use varying amounts of memory depending on the actual requirements at run time (see [[Memory management]]).}}

I was tempted to cite languages with each type of string, but that might be [[information overload|TMI]].

I suspect that most modern programming languages have dynamic-length strings, so the rest of the paragraph may also need changes. -- [[User:Chatul|Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz Username:Chatul]] ([[User talk:Chatul|talk]]) 12:51, 11 August 2025 (UTC)