These function names suck, therefore C sucks.
string and then a shorthand of the function, how much easier could it get?
>>51828841
He's probably an object orientated programmer.
>>51828841
Did you mean to type "wrote str then had a stroke at the keyboard"?
>>51828880
practically everything in unix is heavily shorthanded, and C is no exception being heavily influenced by unix.
compare the windows or java API, where everything is UnnecessarilyUpperCaseFunctionNames, you can appreciate being able to shorthand something when used often
>>51828790
>>51828880
suggest 'better' names for five of these functions.
>>51828918
The IDE will autocomplete
>>51828790
>there are people who don't think these names are good
>those same people probably believe something like CopyCStringToDestinationFromSource would be better
>>51828918
yeah although unix was before IDEs whereas AllTheUpperCaseShit is IDE hand holding
The biggest problem with C's standard library is that there is no database or GUI library built-in
>>51828949
still doesn't help. I'm at the point where practically every line of code, every letter in that line, is my enemy
reduce it as much as possible
>>51829044
that's nice dear
>>51828790
>judging a language based only on the naming conventions of a set of library functions.
Is this your first month programming in C? If so I hope you can eventually see the beauty in the control it provisions you with.
>>51829069
That control is unnecessary for 99% of applications
you forgot strstr op
>>51829085
Perhaps if you are resigned to programming for the open web it may feel like 99%. The increasing push for the IOT has dramatically increased the demand for networking capability on small embedded devices. They require the speed and weight of C.
>>51828790
>copyStringIntoString()
>appendStringToString()
>compareWith()
>compareWithCaseInsensitive()
>countLengthOfString()
>reverseString()
>convertToLowercase()
>convertToUppercase()
>findFirstOccurrenceOf()
>findLastOccurrenceOf()
>setAllCharactersTo()
>setSpecifiedCharactersTo()
like these more, faggOP?
>>51828790
Complete C++ noob, can I rename default function calls in the header?
>>51829292
If functions are first-class objects sure.
this isnt an OOP language you flaming faggot
It's because linkers limited external names to the first 6 characters.
>they all assume null terminated strings
>they all assume ascii
DROPPED
>>51828918
>>51829044
>>51828976
> I type at 35wpm because of my carpel tunnel from years of using emacs.
>>51828790
Suggest better names then faggot
>>51829424
>null terminated strings aka C-strings
>what are wcs* functions
>caring about the stdlib
>thinking string handling is a deal breaker
>>51829427
Vim hurts more than emacs if your ctrl key is in the right spot instead of where fn belongs
>>51829393
>strcmpi
>strrchr
>strnset
>>51829934
strcmpi and strn* are decades newer. strrchr is unique in the first 6 characters.
>>51829069
>the control
fun way to spell lack of features
>>51828949
>>51829427
The code is still less readable. Short <= 8 sign function and variable names names any the code so much better to read.
>>51829559
your ctrl key is not on the corner of the keyboard? poor you
>>51828790
most of those aren't even standard C.
>>51828973
>not using AbstractEnterpriseCopyCStringFromSourceToDestinationBeansFactoryFactoryInterface
>>51829424
>they all assume ascii
No, it assumes char a.k.a. bytes. C strings don't assume encodings.
>>51828790
C is inferior to C++ in strings.
>>51829424
Nothing wrong with that.
>>51828790
Wow, python babby can't into C. Fuck you, you fuck.
>>51834199
Exactly, it's the programmer's responsibility. Good way to weed out the curryshit code monkies.
>>51828790
>string copy
>string concatenate
>string compare
>string compare insensitive
>string length
>string reverse
>string lower (case)
>string upper (case)
>string character
>string reverse character
>string set
>string number set
Seems logical to me.
