At 05:04 PM 12/25/2001 -0800, Brian Sharon wrote:
> > Which is good, because I don't think that's what I said =)
>
>Just to set the record straight, you did say:
>
>"Which is a pretty strong indicator that STL could use some tightening up
>in its design or, alternatively, that implementation should provide
>basic pre and post-condition checking."
Crapola dude, what, you gonna nit pick everything by pointing out something
where I obviously said something I didn't think I said? =) Listen to what I
meant, not what I said..heh.
Just to be clear, I don't have much of an opinion on STL's design, since
it's obviously working with a different set of goals and limitations than,
say, the Eiffel Base/GOBO container classes of Java Collection classes.
My earlier comment was more of a general hand waving of "STL has issues
when it comes to usability, I'm not sure which, so I'll be wishy washy and
say they can be fixed with a slightly different design or a better
implementation".
Which, of course, would be in the "duh" category.
>penance, I'm going to start a new thread with the subject "STL: Rocks
>Like Slayer or Totally Sucks?" ;)
Actually, I'm real curious how STL's design compares to
Obj-C's/CoreFoundation, Java Collections and Eiffel/GOBO. The designers of
those libraries likely made very different choices in how they approached
things (for example, IIRC Java Collections throw an exception when you have
multiple iterators operating on the same container, whereas in STL this
will lead to a run-time error that may be tough to track down).
Brian
|
