string? what does that even mean? why is it not called a char_array or something? and then null terminated string? You mean random_access_char_stream? Who came up with this nonsense? and everyone is gobbling it up!
@namark I'm going to hazard a guess that it comes from the lesser used definition of string: "a group of objects arranged in a line" similar to the phrase "a string of pearls". In this case, a string of anything is simply an array/vector. However, array/vector isn't something typically used outside of STEM vocabulary, so perhaps the more linguistically associated word (string) being aligned with linguistically associated data (character arrays) makes sense.
Alternatively, arbitrary jargon almost always finds its way into different fields via wackos who create poorly fitting analogies, so who knows lmao
@johnabs "a string of pearls" I read as pearls threaded on a string, or otherwise made into a string - a very flexible and spatially complicated object. Even if we intentionally ignore everything that defines a string, and just look at it as a sequence, then at least it should be something like a queue, with specific properties like insertion/deletion being efficient and often used on the two ends, and abysmal in the middle.
The usage you are referring to is much more fringe and I guess akin to some usage of the word chain? Like a chain of events, implies that the events are connected somehow maybe and not just random. String of character linguistically connected?... eh, maybe,. but I don't think I've ever seen strings with such an invariant implemented, or such an invariant relied upon in string processing en large. It's more the case that they happen to be linguistically connected because we use language and we like to do that, in the same way the sequences of number we deal with usually mean something.
Either way coming up with good names for things is part of the job description, and lesser (or almost never ever?) used meaning or arbitrary jargon is... y'all should be fired is what I'm saying basically...
@namark you asked "why". I gave a possible explanation for "why", but I never said the reason was a good one XD
@johnabs I meant for the original sin of accepting string, not your specific explanation
@namark Ah, well, uh....alrighty then.
@johnabs but you accepted it didn't you, and used it and maybe even taught it without question! shaaaaame!!