STL and programmers for UNIX

[Roman Gavrilov]

A friend of mine stated that STL is not used by experienced UNIX
programmers. What do you think, is it so?

BR,
Roman Gavrilov

[joe@invalid.address]

[email]clavrg@hotmail.com[/email] (Roman Gavrilov) writes:

> A friend of mine stated that STL is not used by experienced UNIX
> programmers. What do you think, is it so?

Is this a troll?

But yes, it's used by experienced unix programmers.

Joe
--
There are 10 kinds of engineers, those who understand binary and those
who don't.

[Lew Pitcher]

On 24 Jul 2003 12:26:22 -0700, [email]clavrg@hotmail.com[/email] (Roman Gavrilov) wrote:

>A friend of mine stated that STL is not used by experienced UNIX
>programmers. What do you think, is it so?

Experienced Unix programmers likely program in C, and STL is not a C tool, so
your friend may be correct.

OTOH, experienced Unix programmers program in a lot of different languages, of
which C++ is one. Since STL is a part of C++, I wouldn't say that STL is not
used by experienced Unix programmers.

--
Lew Pitcher
IT Consultant, Enterprise Technology Solutions
Toronto Dominion Bank Financial Group

(Opinions expressed are my own, not my employers')

[Marc Rochkind]

On 24 Jul 2003 12:26:22 -0700, Roman Gavrilov <clavrg@hotmail.com> wrote:

> A friend of mine stated that STL is not used by experienced UNIX
> programmers. What do you think, is it so?
>
> BR,
> Roman Gavrilov
>

Taking what your post says literally and legalistically, it is true: There
are experienced UNIX programmers who don't use it. Or, false: There are
experienced UNIX programmers who do use it.

But, what I think is being alleged is this: STL has not been widely adopted
by C++ programmers who write industrial-quality programs professionally.
And, while I don't have any statistics to back this up, I think that
statement is true. One of the chief reasons why is that STL was made a
standard almost straight from its inventors' workshop. It did not have a
long history of industrial use, as many other standardized library classes
did.

--Marc

[Fritz M]

[email]clavrg@hotmail.com[/email] (Roman Gavrilov) wrote:

> A friend of mine stated that STL is not used by experienced UNIX
> programmers. What do you think, is it so?

Do I think your friend stated that? I guess there isn't any reason to
mistrust your statement about your friend.

Seriously: I guess I'm an experienced Unix programmer and portability
among various Unix versions is always a requirement. The very few times
I've coded in C++ I've used STL.

RFM
--
To reply, translate domain from l33+ 2p33|< to alpha.
4=a 0=o 3=e +=t

[Ralf Fassel]

* Marc Rochkind <rochkind@basepath.com>
| But, what I think is being alleged is this: STL has not been widely
| adopted by C++ programmers who write industrial-quality programs
| professionally. And, while I don't have any statistics to back this
| up, I think that statement is true. One of the chief reasons why is
| that STL was made a standard almost straight from its inventors'
| workshop. It did not have a long history of industrial use, as many
| other standardized library classes did.

Another (maybe related) reason is `old habits are hard to break'.
"I always have written my own `stack', why should I learn STL now?"
"Dynamic sized vectors? All my programs have #define MAX_SIZE 1000,
and if that's not enough, we up this to 10000." "I tried this STL
thing, but I don't grok the docs, and I have to finish this by
tomorrow, so I just code it myself".

Just to make it clear, these are statements I've heard, not my opinion
on STL. I like STL more than my compiler does ;-)

R'