From: jklowden@speakeasy.net
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 14:29:50 -0800 (PST)
Richard Smith wrote:
> What I'd really like is something, preferably on-line, that I can
> point the other developers at that demonstrates that (i) the standard
> library does work. Really. And (ii) it's fast enough. Or, for that
> matter, any other ideas on how to get the other developers on side.
Herb Sutter wrote some articles on the STL making the case that you
simply can't outperform the STL in general. In some specific case you
might see some slight advantage, but not in general.
I wouldn't make the efficiency case, though. I'd make the case for
laziness and correctness:
1. Code you don't write is code you don't maintain.
2. The probability of bugs in the STL is orders of magnitude less than
in your own code.
3. Using the standard library whenever possible improves the code as a
means of communicating to other *programmers*. It speeds comprehension
and promotes standard idioms, which are also less likely to contain
errors.
4. It lowers the barrier to entry. If just one person is attracted to
the project because the code is readable, the benefit to the project
will outweigh any putative benefit of non-standard constructs.
Keep in mind, though, that people get involved in programming projects
to write programs. Sometimes that's an end to itself, secondary to
the project's stated goal. Sometimes pride of authorship -- or
the desire to work at a lower level than one would otherwise be allowed
to -- can lead to the kinds of arguments you describe.
For many years "programmer productivity" was measured in lines of
code. Djisktra used to ridicule that, pointing out that code
was a cost, not a benefit. Management was not just using a poor
metric, but "had the number on the wrong side of the ledger"!
--jkl
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
