不一定是基本原理，而是长度编码的对应物

Certain forms of dynamic length encoding are superior to static length encoding as far as memory is concerned, it all depends on usage. Just look at UTF-8 for proof. It's essentially an extensible character array for encoding a single character. This uses a single bit for each extended byte. NUL termination uses 8 bits. Length-prefix I think can be reasonably termed infinite length as well by using 64 bits. How often you hit the case of your extra bits is the deciding factor. Only 1 extremely large string? Who cares if you're using 8 or 64 bits? Many small strings (Ie Strings of English words)? Then your prefix costs are a large percentage. Length-prefixed strings allowing time savings is not a real thing. Whether your supplied data is required to have length provided, you're counting at compile time, or you're truly being provided dynamic data that you must encode as a string. These sizes are computed at some point in the algorithm. A separate variable to store the size of a null terminated string can be provided. Which makes the comparison on time-savings moot. One just has an extra NUL at the end... but if the length encode doesn't include that NUL then there's literally no difference between the two. There's no algorithmic change required at all. Just a pre-pass you have to manually design yourself instead of having a compiler/runtime do it for you. C is mostly about doing things manually. Length-prefix being optional is a selling point. I don't always need that extra info for an algorithm so being required to do it for a every string makes my precompute+compute time never able to drop below O(n). (Ie hardware random number generator 1-128. I can pull from an "infinite string". Let's say it only generates characters so fast. So our string length changes all the time. But my usage of the data probably doesn't care how many random bytes I have. It just wants the next available unused byte as soon as it can get it after a request. I could be waiting on the device. But I could also have a buffer of characters pre-read. A length comparison is a needless waste of computation. A null check is more efficient.) Length-prefix is a good guard against buffer overflow? So is sane usage of library functions and implementation. What if I pass in malformed data? My buffer is 2 bytes long but I tell the function it's 7! Ex: If gets() was intended to be used on known data it could've had an internal buffer check that tested compiled buffers and malloc() calls and still follow spec. If it was meant to be used as a pipe for unknown STDIN to arrive at unknown buffer then clearly one can't know abut the buffer size which means a length arg is pointless, you need something else here like a canary check. For that matter, you can't length-prefix some streams and inputs, you just can't. Which means the length check has to be built into the algorithm and not a magic part of the typing system. TL;DR NUL-terminated never had to be unsafe, it just ended up that way via misuse. counter-counter point: NUL-termination is annoying on binary. You either need to do length-prefix here or transform NUL bytes in some way: escape-codes, range remapping, etc... which of course means more-memory-usage/reduced-information/more-operations-per-byte. Length-prefix mostly wins the war here. The only upside to a transform is that no additional functions have to be written to cover the length-prefix strings. Which means on your more optimized sub-O(n) routines you can have them automatically act as their O(n) equivalents without adding more code. Downside is, of course, time/memory/compression waste when used on NUL heavy strings. Depending on how much of your library you end up duplicating to operate on binary data, it may make sense to work solely with length-prefix strings. That said one could also do the same with length-prefix strings... -1 length could mean NUL-terminated and you could use NUL-terminated strings inside length-terminated. Concat: "O(n+m) vs O(m)" I'm assuming your referring to m as the total length of the string after concatenating because they both have to have that number of operations minimum (you can't just tack-on to string 1, what if you have to realloc?). And I'm assuming n is a mythical amount of operations you no longer have to do because of a pre-compute. If so, then the answer is simple: pre-compute. If you're insisting you'll always have enough memory to not need to realloc and that's the basis of the big-O notation then the answer is even more simple: do binary search on allocated memory for end of string 1, clearly there's a large swatch of infinite zeros after string 1 for us to not worry about realloc. There, easily got n to log(n) and I barely tried. Which if you recall log(n) is essentially only ever as large as 64 on a real computer, which is essentially like saying O(64+m), which is essentially O(m). (And yes that logic has been used in run-time analysis of real data structures in-use today. It's not bullshit off the top of my head.) Concat()/Len() again: Memoize results. Easy. Turns all computes into pre-computes if possible/necessary. This is an algorithmic decision. It's not an enforced constraint of the language. String suffix passing is easier/possible with NUL termination. Depending on how length-prefix is implemented it can be destructive on original string and can sometimes not even be possible. Requiring a copy and pass O(n) instead of O(1). Argument-passing/de-referencing is less for NUL-terminated versus length-prefix. Obviously because you're passing less information. If you don't need length, then this saves a lot of footprint and allows optimizations. You can cheat. It's really just a pointer. Who says you have to read it as a string? What if you want to read it as a single character or a float? What if you want to do the opposite and read a float as a string? If you're careful you can do this with NUL-termination. You can't do this with length-prefix, it's a data type distinctly different from a pointer typically. You'd most likely have to build a string byte-by-byte and get the length. Of course if you wanted something like an entire float (probably has a NUL inside it) you'd have to read byte-by-byte anyway, but the details are left to you to decide.

TL;DR您使用二进制数据吗?如果不是，那么null终止允许更多的算法自由。如果是，那么代码数量vs速度/内存/压缩是你的主要关注点。两种方法的混合或记忆可能是最好的。

与长度前缀相比，null终止的一个优点是字符串比较的简单性，这一点我没有看到任何人提到过。考虑比较标准，它返回小于、等于或大于的有符号结果。对于长度前缀，算法必须遵循以下几行:

Compare the two lengths; record the smaller, and note if they are equal (this last step might be deferred to step 3). Scan the two character sequences, subtracting characters at matching indices (or use a dual pointer scan). Stop either when the difference is nonzero, returning the difference, or when the number of characters scanned is equal to the smaller length. When the smaller length is reached, one string is a prefix of the other. Return negative or positive value according to which is shorter, or zero if of equal length.

将其与null终止算法进行对比:

扫描两个字符序列，在匹配的索引处减去字符[注意，移动指针处理得更好]。当差值非零时停止，返回差值。注意:如果一个字符串是另一个字符串的PROPER前缀，减法中的一个字符将为NUL，即零，比较将自然地停止在那里。 如果差值为零，-only then-检查是否有字符为NUL。如果是，则返回0，否则继续到下一个字符。

以null结尾的情况更简单，并且非常容易用双指针扫描高效地实现。带长度前缀的大小写至少做同样多的工作，几乎总是更多。如果你的算法必须做大量的字符串比较[e。编译器!]，以null结尾的情况胜出。现在，这可能不那么重要了，但在过去，是的。

在很多方面，C语言是原始的。我很喜欢。

它比汇编语言高了一步，用一种更容易编写和维护的语言提供了几乎相同的性能。

空结束符很简单，不需要语言的特殊支持。

现在回想起来，似乎并不是那么方便。但我在80年代使用汇编语言，当时它似乎非常方便。我只是认为软件在不断地发展，平台和工具也在不断地变得越来越复杂。

空终止允许基于快速指针的操作。

不一定是基本原理，而是长度编码的对应物

Certain forms of dynamic length encoding are superior to static length encoding as far as memory is concerned, it all depends on usage. Just look at UTF-8 for proof. It's essentially an extensible character array for encoding a single character. This uses a single bit for each extended byte. NUL termination uses 8 bits. Length-prefix I think can be reasonably termed infinite length as well by using 64 bits. How often you hit the case of your extra bits is the deciding factor. Only 1 extremely large string? Who cares if you're using 8 or 64 bits? Many small strings (Ie Strings of English words)? Then your prefix costs are a large percentage. Length-prefixed strings allowing time savings is not a real thing. Whether your supplied data is required to have length provided, you're counting at compile time, or you're truly being provided dynamic data that you must encode as a string. These sizes are computed at some point in the algorithm. A separate variable to store the size of a null terminated string can be provided. Which makes the comparison on time-savings moot. One just has an extra NUL at the end... but if the length encode doesn't include that NUL then there's literally no difference between the two. There's no algorithmic change required at all. Just a pre-pass you have to manually design yourself instead of having a compiler/runtime do it for you. C is mostly about doing things manually. Length-prefix being optional is a selling point. I don't always need that extra info for an algorithm so being required to do it for a every string makes my precompute+compute time never able to drop below O(n). (Ie hardware random number generator 1-128. I can pull from an "infinite string". Let's say it only generates characters so fast. So our string length changes all the time. But my usage of the data probably doesn't care how many random bytes I have. It just wants the next available unused byte as soon as it can get it after a request. I could be waiting on the device. But I could also have a buffer of characters pre-read. A length comparison is a needless waste of computation. A null check is more efficient.) Length-prefix is a good guard against buffer overflow? So is sane usage of library functions and implementation. What if I pass in malformed data? My buffer is 2 bytes long but I tell the function it's 7! Ex: If gets() was intended to be used on known data it could've had an internal buffer check that tested compiled buffers and malloc() calls and still follow spec. If it was meant to be used as a pipe for unknown STDIN to arrive at unknown buffer then clearly one can't know abut the buffer size which means a length arg is pointless, you need something else here like a canary check. For that matter, you can't length-prefix some streams and inputs, you just can't. Which means the length check has to be built into the algorithm and not a magic part of the typing system. TL;DR NUL-terminated never had to be unsafe, it just ended up that way via misuse. counter-counter point: NUL-termination is annoying on binary. You either need to do length-prefix here or transform NUL bytes in some way: escape-codes, range remapping, etc... which of course means more-memory-usage/reduced-information/more-operations-per-byte. Length-prefix mostly wins the war here. The only upside to a transform is that no additional functions have to be written to cover the length-prefix strings. Which means on your more optimized sub-O(n) routines you can have them automatically act as their O(n) equivalents without adding more code. Downside is, of course, time/memory/compression waste when used on NUL heavy strings. Depending on how much of your library you end up duplicating to operate on binary data, it may make sense to work solely with length-prefix strings. That said one could also do the same with length-prefix strings... -1 length could mean NUL-terminated and you could use NUL-terminated strings inside length-terminated. Concat: "O(n+m) vs O(m)" I'm assuming your referring to m as the total length of the string after concatenating because they both have to have that number of operations minimum (you can't just tack-on to string 1, what if you have to realloc?). And I'm assuming n is a mythical amount of operations you no longer have to do because of a pre-compute. If so, then the answer is simple: pre-compute. If you're insisting you'll always have enough memory to not need to realloc and that's the basis of the big-O notation then the answer is even more simple: do binary search on allocated memory for end of string 1, clearly there's a large swatch of infinite zeros after string 1 for us to not worry about realloc. There, easily got n to log(n) and I barely tried. Which if you recall log(n) is essentially only ever as large as 64 on a real computer, which is essentially like saying O(64+m), which is essentially O(m). (And yes that logic has been used in run-time analysis of real data structures in-use today. It's not bullshit off the top of my head.) Concat()/Len() again: Memoize results. Easy. Turns all computes into pre-computes if possible/necessary. This is an algorithmic decision. It's not an enforced constraint of the language. String suffix passing is easier/possible with NUL termination. Depending on how length-prefix is implemented it can be destructive on original string and can sometimes not even be possible. Requiring a copy and pass O(n) instead of O(1). Argument-passing/de-referencing is less for NUL-terminated versus length-prefix. Obviously because you're passing less information. If you don't need length, then this saves a lot of footprint and allows optimizations. You can cheat. It's really just a pointer. Who says you have to read it as a string? What if you want to read it as a single character or a float? What if you want to do the opposite and read a float as a string? If you're careful you can do this with NUL-termination. You can't do this with length-prefix, it's a data type distinctly different from a pointer typically. You'd most likely have to build a string byte-by-byte and get the length. Of course if you wanted something like an entire float (probably has a NUL inside it) you'd have to read byte-by-byte anyway, but the details are left to you to decide.

TL;DR您使用二进制数据吗?如果不是，那么null终止允许更多的算法自由。如果是，那么代码数量vs速度/内存/压缩是你的主要关注点。两种方法的混合或记忆可能是最好的。

我觉得更好的问题是你为什么觉得C欠你什么?C语言的设计是为了满足你的需要，仅此而已。你需要摆脱那种认为语言必须为你提供一切的心态。或者只是继续使用你的高级语言，这将给你奢侈的字符串，日历，容器;而在Java中，你会得到一种千变万化的东西。多个类型字符串，多个类型的unordered_map(s)。

这对你来说太糟糕了，这不是C的目的。C并不是被设计成一种从大头针到锚的臃肿语言。相反，您必须依赖第三方库或您自己的库。没有什么比创建一个包含字符串及其大小的简单结构体更容易的了。

struct String
{
 const char *s;
 size_t len;
};

你知道问题出在哪里。它不标准。另一种语言可能决定将len组织在字符串之前。另一种语言可能决定使用指针来代替结束。另一个人可能决定使用六个指针来提高String的效率。然而，null结尾的字符串是字符串的最标准格式;你可以用它来与任何语言进行交互。甚至Java JNI也使用以空结尾的字符串。

Lastly, it is a common saying; the right data structure for the task. If you find that need to know the size of a string more than anything else; well use a string structure that allows you to do that optimally. But don't make claims that that operation is used more than anything else for everybody. Like, why is knowing the size of a string more important than reading its contents. I find that reading the contents of a string is what I mostly do, so I use null terminated strings instead of std::string; which saves me 5 pointers on a GCC compiler. If I can even save 2 pointers that is good.