[ncmncm]

>How do you "plugin" the NUL. If there's no space for it, then everytime you want a C string, you need to do an allocation.

You have not thought it through. There was always space for a NUL, but nobody needs it to have a NUL in it until somebody calls c_str(). Anyway, that was true until somebody jiggered the Standard, just before 1998, to require a NUL visible to s[s.size()].

>C Code that depends on NUL termination is ubiquitous.

Fixed that for you.

[braindeath]

> Anyway, that was true until somebody jiggered the Standard, just before 1998, to require a NUL visible to s[s.size()].

This is not technically true. You could plugin your hated NUL byte in the implementation of operator [].

> C Code that depends on NUL termination is ubiquitous.

No, that's not what I said. It really doesn't matter what language underlying the API of all the code that expects NUL terminated strings is written in (a lot of it is C++ of course too). Windows, MacOS, and all POSIX-ish systems have a large API that consumes NUL terminated strings. NUL terminated strings are ubiquitous in computing at this point. Sure blame C from 40 years ago and burn a dmr effigy, I don't care, but that battle was long lost.

NUL terminated strings may be terrible, but the C++ accomodation for them is not -- its a well-thought out trade-off. My understanding is that neither go nor Rust make this trade-off. golangs FFI and syscall overhead has always been something of a performance disaster anyway. C++ has always had a greater demand to "play nice" with legacy code and systems then either of those.

The overhead of just having the NUL-byte is almost always a non-factor. If it really is, then use a byte vector.

[ncmncm]

Buggering op[] would be the slowest possible way to get the NUL there. Some of us would have liked for string operations not to be as absolutely slow as can be achieved. Evidently that is a minority preference.

If you think anybody is complaining about the extra space for the NUL, what you are barking up is not even a tree.

[braindeath]

> Buggering op[] would be the slowest possible way to get the NUL there.

> Evidently that is a minority preference.

What evidence? Pointing out a fact isn't an endorsement.

> If you think anybody is complaining about the extra space for the NUL

Then what exactly are you complaining about? Setting the byte to 0? If not, why are you being so obtuse?

> what you are barking up is not even a tree.

In this thread your tone is repeatedly that of a condescending jerk.

[ncmncm]

You have presented your credentials.

[BubRoss]

Are you saying that there should not be an extra 0 byte at the end until the string fills up and c_str() is called? Inconsistent allocations seem like a recipe for difficult to debug performance problems.

[ncmncm]

> Are you saying that there should not be an extra 0 byte at the end until the string fills up and c_str() is called?

No.