尽管我很喜欢C和c++,但我还是忍不住对空结尾字符串的选择抓耳挠脑:

Length prefixed (i.e. Pascal) strings existed before C Length prefixed strings make several algorithms faster by allowing constant time length lookup. Length prefixed strings make it more difficult to cause buffer overrun errors. Even on a 32 bit machine, if you allow the string to be the size of available memory, a length prefixed string is only three bytes wider than a null terminated string. On 16 bit machines this is a single byte. On 64 bit machines, 4GB is a reasonable string length limit, but even if you want to expand it to the size of the machine word, 64 bit machines usually have ample memory making the extra seven bytes sort of a null argument. I know the original C standard was written for insanely poor machines (in terms of memory), but the efficiency argument doesn't sell me here. Pretty much every other language (i.e. Perl, Pascal, Python, Java, C#, etc) use length prefixed strings. These languages usually beat C in string manipulation benchmarks because they are more efficient with strings. C++ rectified this a bit with the std::basic_string template, but plain character arrays expecting null terminated strings are still pervasive. This is also imperfect because it requires heap allocation. Null terminated strings have to reserve a character (namely, null), which cannot exist in the string, while length prefixed strings can contain embedded nulls.

其中一些东西比C语言出现得更晚,所以C语言不知道它们是有道理的。然而,在C语言出现之前,有些语言就已经很简单了。为什么会选择空终止字符串,而不是明显更好的长度前缀?

编辑:因为有些人问了关于我上面提到的效率点的事实(他们不喜欢我已经提供的事实),他们源于以下几点:

使用空结尾字符串的Concat需要O(n + m)时间复杂度。长度前缀通常只需要O(m)。 使用空结尾字符串的长度需要O(n)时间复杂度。长度前缀为O(1)。 Length和concat是迄今为止最常见的字符串操作。在一些情况下,以空结尾的字符串可能更有效,但这种情况发生的频率要低得多。

从下面的答案,这些是一些情况下,空终止字符串更有效:

When you need to cut off the start of a string and need to pass it to some method. You can't really do this in constant time with length prefixing even if you are allowed to destroy the original string, because the length prefix probably needs to follow alignment rules. In some cases where you're just looping through the string character by character you might be able to save a CPU register. Note that this works only in the case that you haven't dynamically allocated the string (Because then you'd have to free it, necessitating using that CPU register you saved to hold the pointer you originally got from malloc and friends).

上面这些词都没有length和concat常见。

下面的答案中还有一个断言:

你需要把绳子的一端剪掉

但这个是不正确的——对于以null结尾的字符串和有长度前缀的字符串,它的时间是相同的。(以Null结尾的字符串只是在你想要的新结尾的地方插入一个Null,长度前缀只是从前缀中减去。)


当前回答

我不相信“C没有字符串”的答案。没错,C语言不支持内置的高级类型,但你仍然可以用C语言表示数据结构,这就是字符串。在C语言中,字符串只是一个指针,但这并不意味着前N个字节不能作为长度具有特殊意义。

Windows/COM开发人员将非常熟悉BSTR类型,它就像这样——一个有长度前缀的C字符串,其中实际的字符数据不是从字节0开始的。

因此,使用空终止符的决定似乎只是人们喜欢的,而不是语言的必要。

其他回答

假设C以Pascal的方式实现字符串,通过前缀长度:7字符长字符串与3字符字符串的数据类型相同吗?如果答案是肯定的,那么当我将前者分配给后者时,编译器应该生成什么样的代码?字符串应该被截断,还是自动调整大小?如果调整大小,该操作是否应该被锁保护以使其线程安全?不管你喜不喜欢,C语言的方法回避了所有这些问题。

来自马的口

None of BCPL, B, or C supports character data strongly in the language; each treats strings much like vectors of integers and supplements general rules by a few conventions. In both BCPL and B a string literal denotes the address of a static area initialized with the characters of the string, packed into cells. In BCPL, the first packed byte contains the number of characters in the string; in B, there is no count and strings are terminated by a special character, which B spelled *e. This change was made partially to avoid the limitation on the length of a string caused by holding the count in an 8- or 9-bit slot, and partly because maintaining the count seemed, in our experience, less convenient than using a terminator.

Dennis M Ritchie, C语言的开发

Obviously for performance and safety, you'll want to keep the length of a string while you're working with it rather than repeatedly performing strlen or the equivalent on it. However, storing the length in a fixed location just before the string contents is an incredibly bad design. As Jörgen pointed out in the comments on Sanjit's answer, it precludes treating the tail of a string as a string, which for example makes a lot of common operations like path_to_filename or filename_to_extension impossible without allocating new memory (and incurring the possibility of failure and error handling). And then of course there's the issue that nobody can agree how many bytes the string length field should occupy (plenty of bad "Pascal string" languages used 16-bit fields or even 24-bit fields which preclude processing of long strings).

C语言让程序员选择是否/在哪里/如何存储长度的设计更加灵活和强大。当然,程序员必须聪明。C语言惩罚愚蠢的程序崩溃,慢慢停止,或者让你的敌人扎根。

Calavera是对的,但由于人们似乎没有理解他的观点,我将提供一些代码示例。

首先,让我们考虑一下C是什么:一种简单的语言,其中所有代码都可以直接转换为机器语言。所有类型都适合寄存器和堆栈,并且它不需要一个操作系统或一个大的运行时库来运行,因为它是用来编写这些东西的(考虑到今天甚至没有一个可能的竞争对手,这个任务非常适合)。

如果C语言有一个字符串类型,比如int或char,它将是一种不适合寄存器或堆栈的类型,并且需要以任何方式处理内存分配(及其所有支持的基础设施)。所有这些都违背了C语言的基本原则。

因此,C语言中的字符串是:

char s*;

那么,我们假设这是有长度前缀的。让我们编写代码来连接两个字符串:

char* concat(char* s1, char* s2)
{
    /* What? What is the type of the length of the string? */
    int l1 = *(int*) s1;
    /* How much? How much must I skip? */
    char *s1s = s1 + sizeof(int);
    int l2 = *(int*) s2;
    char *s2s = s2 + sizeof(int);
    int l3 = l1 + l2;
    char *s3 = (char*) malloc(l3 + sizeof(int));
    char *s3s = s3 + sizeof(int);
    memcpy(s3s, s1s, l1);
    memcpy(s3s + l1, s2s, l2);
    *(int*) s3 = l3;
    return s3;
}

另一种方法是使用struct来定义字符串:

struct {
  int len; /* cannot be left implementation-defined */
  char* buf;
}

此时,所有的字符串操作都需要进行两次分配,这实际上意味着您将通过一个库来进行任何处理。

有趣的是……这样的结构体在C中确实存在!它们只是不用于日常显示消息给用户处理。

所以,这就是Calavera的观点:在c语言中没有字符串类型,要对它做任何事情,你必须获取一个指针,并将其解码为指向两个不同类型的指针,然后字符串的大小就变得非常相关,而不能仅仅是“实现定义”。

现在,C可以以任何方式处理内存,并且库中的mem函数(甚至在<string.h>中!)提供了将内存作为一对指针和大小来处理所需的所有工具。C语言中所谓的“字符串”的创建只有一个目的:在为文本终端编写操作系统的上下文中显示消息。因此,空终止就足够了。

空终止允许基于快速指针的操作。