RE: [GD-General] Eiffel

[Brian S. <bs...@mi...>]

>> that's your baby.  But you can't argue that STL is badly=20
>> designed because Plauger's implementation does no input=20
>> validation or debug checking.  You might be able to argue it=20
>> from other standpoints, but not from that one.

> Which is good, because I don't think that's what I said =3D)

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."

I think I characterized that quite fairly, and as for the notion that my =
first email was "raging", well I'm not quite sure what to chalk that up =
to.  I actually thought that parts of it were amusing, and it was merely =
meant to relate my experience of watching people give up on STL after =
the briefest of encounters.  I thought my email might provide =
inspiration, or at least comfort, in the knowledge that programming with =
STL does actually improve with time (like so many other things).  I know =
that's an extremely wishy-washy position for me to hold.  As penance, =
I'm going to start a new thread with the subject  "STL: Rocks Like =
Slayer or Totally Sucks?" ;)

Happy holidays to all.=20

--brian

-----Original Message-----
From:	Brian Hook [mailto:bri...@py...]
Sent:	Mon 12/24/2001 12:58 PM
To:	gam...@li...
Cc:=09
Subject:	RE: [GD-General] Eiffel

> Near the end of your email, I think you made the right=20
> distinction between debugging STL (which I'm arguing is a=20
> distraction at best)

More generally, debugging a third party set of reusable code should be a
distraction at best.

> So - given that I was talking about debugging STL in that bit=20
> you excerpted - what's the contradiction?

It seemed to me that the bulk of your e-mail was raging against the
notion of "debugging STL", I was merely stating that no one said as much
(i.e. my complaints were on the "debuggability of programs that use
STL").

> lessons are deeply ingrained.  So since I never free things=20
> twice any longer, does that mean free() is badly designed?

Yes, in fact, it does.  The CRTL is not what I consider an example of
good library design.  A library that allows, for lack of a better
phrase, "intuitive but incorrect usage", is probably poorly implemented
(maybe not designed, but once again, I'm not against STL's design -- I
haven't used it enough to really judge -- but I am against the
implementations).

> that's your baby.  But you can't argue that STL is badly=20
> designed because Plauger's implementation does no input=20
> validation or debug checking.  You might be able to argue it=20
> from other standpoints, but not from that one.

Which is good, because I don't think that's what I said =3D)

> p.s. sorry if I got anyone's hopes up too high, the STLPort=20
> iterators do NOT actually use Mr. T voices.

Well crap, I guess I'm cancelling that download now.

Brian


_______________________________________________
Gamedevlists-general mailing list
Gam...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gamedevlists-general