home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- From: vandevod@cs.rpi.edu (David Vandevoorde)
- Message-ID: <xsog2d86kck.fsf@avs.cs.rpi.edu>
- X-Original-Date: 22 Jan 1996 15:32:59 -0500
- Path: in2.uu.net!bounce-back
- Date: 22 Jan 96 22:20:49 GMT
- Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: STL still in standard
- Organization: RPI Computer Science
- In-Reply-To: kanze@gabi.gabi-soft.fr's message of 22 Jan 96 13:38:45 GMT
- X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.1
- X-Auth: PGPMoose V1.1 PGP comp.std.c++
- iQBFAgUBMQQN5+EDnX0m9pzZAQHS+gF+Lk4K4oKLNbvzvMFDyCBiLU9ASsydQd+S
- /wTlwXOTzCpD/0cogRJllGiJNtVol/8G
- =lGyp
-
- (My previous similar article got lost somehow. Since then the original
- post has expired at this site.)
-
- James Kanze essentially asked earlier in this thread:
- ``Why would anyone _not_ want the STL to be part of standard C++?''
-
- One argument that I've heard (and with which I sympathize to a certain
- degree) is that the standard C++ library should consist only of those
- elements that are hard or innefficient to implement portably using the
- core language.
-
- For example, the implementation of the I/O part of the library is highly
- dependent on the underlying platform (hardware+OS), while a char-string
- library is likely to benefit from hardware support on several common
- architectures.
-
- Most of the STL on the other hand can be efficiently implemented using
- the core language features and traditional optimizing methods.
-
- IMO, the major advantage of having standardized what is now called STL,
- is that it has shown to:
- 1) the public how to better use C++ to obtain efficient, yet
- loosely coupled (and hence more reusable) software components,
- and 2) the C++ designers which additional template features would be
- helpful to support such designs.
-
- However, being part of the standard, STL may very well cause progress
- to stiffle in the techniques used to implement fundamental data
- structures and algorithms. Indeed one may fear that if someone came up
- with a design that is significantly ``superior'' to STL, chances are that
- her ideas would be turned down because ``they are not standard''.
-
- OTOH, the idea that ``a standard library decomposition method'' is an
- essential benefit of STL being part of standard C++ seems weakened by
- the fact that some vendors have announced that they will ``hide'' STL
- under their own design strategies.
-
- The Devil's Advocate
- ---
- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
- Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy
- is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]
-