Re: String Buffer

["Dmitry A. Kazakov" <mailbox@dmitry-kazakov.de>]

On 2021-12-02 20:56, Jeffrey R.Carter wrote:
> On 2021-12-02 19:17, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
>>
>> Unbounded is said to be inefficient because it re-allocates.
>>
>> In any case avoiding unbounded strings is almost certainly in the 
>> realm of premature optimisation

I see it as a design question. Code that modifies a string as a whole is 
most likely broken. Unbounded_String property of varying length is not 
needed except for very special cases, like passing parameters where no 
result is allowed, e.g. in the task entries. Most, if not all such cases 
are Ada language design deficiencies. Normally there should be no need 
for Unbounded_String.

> In the absence of such context, any claims of "inefficiency" (and 
> especially blanket claims such as "Unbounded_String is inefficient") 
> simply demonstrate the speaker's incompetence.

It is true only to a certain degree. When comparing algorithms it is 
valid to claim inefficiency without any context if computational 
complexity sufficiently differs.

For example, an O(N) algorithm is unquestionably inefficient comparing 
to O(log N) one. I leave marginal cases of very small N.

Unbounded_String uses storage pool and that is a qualitative difference 
that requires in any context. For very large text buffers they are 
unusable either. Again, it is a design question, any time I see 
Unbounded_String alarm bells start ringing.

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry A. Kazakov
http://www.dmitry-kazakov.de