91494cfd   
   From: 0xCDCDCDCD@gmx.at   
      
   On 13.02.2012 19:34, P. Areias wrote:   
   > Syntax-wise, C++03 and C++11 are large but not scarily so.   
   >   
   > Syntax-wise, C++03 and C++11 allow a finer grain of control than more   
   > recent languages and this is an obvious advantage.   
   >   
   > The Standard Libraries are, in my perspective, scary to approach,   
   > learn and use. Iterators in various forms, inserters, indices, etc.   
   >   
   > Sort Algorithms which directly sort the values, confusing "help"   
   > functions that are just silly (for_each??)   
   >   
      
   I beg to differ. There's nothing scary about std::vector and nobody is   
   required to gulp down *the whole* of the standard lkibrary in one go.   
      
   > Even std::vector is horrible to use sometimes. What about pre-defined   
   > IO, what about a true sort member function, etc?   
   >   
      
   You say it yourself: "sometimes". That's because *sometimes* it's not the best   
   tool for the job. Then you use something different.   
      
   > Note that Algorithms are procedural functions and therefore even   
   > experienced programmers tend to forget that they are there.   
   >   
      
   That is true. Tools could do a better job here.   
      
   > I don't see any advantage in using the Standard Libraries (either 03   
   > and 11) compared to a roll-your-own library, besides the time spent in   
   > writing or adapting code.   
   >   
      
   Oh yeah! Let's roll everything ourselves.   
      
   We did (do) have a *few* self-rolled containers around here, and the time I   
   myself alone spent fixing bugs in them after they've been around for years far   
   exceeds the time it took me to get familiar with their equivalent in the   
   standard library!   
      
   > Frankly, arguments such as the one of initialization show prejudice   
   > "we did this and it was painful, therefore you shouldn't have the   
   > capacity to do it...".   
   >   
      
   Well-founded prejudice, IMHO. If you're going to reinvent the wheel, you're   
   going to pay for it. Simple as that, even if it's rounder in the end. It   
   doesn't make economic sense in most cases, IMHO.   
      
   > Let's see a (easier) list: a replacement for std::list but with C++11   
   > syntax. I can explain it in detail and why it is better than std::list   
   > (...)   
      
   Better for whom?   
      
   I will readily admit that the std lib has some warts, but I'd rather use   
   something imperfect that is known by millions of programmers, than use   
   something allegedly perfect, that is not widely tested and used.   
      
   cheers,   
   Martin   
      
   --   
   Good C++ code is better than good C code, but   
   bad C++ can be much, much worse than bad C code.   
      
      
         [ 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)