>>61
Because C++ is machine dependent and compiler dependent, you have situation where STL on linux will be implimented differently than on visual studio 2003 or 2005. This is because of compilers and how they define how they will impliment the C++ standard. This is where suttle bugs creep in and your up to 4 in the morning trying to isolate bug. The STL advicates will jump on my back here, and say im wrong. Because i didnt have x.*** library file or **** compiler. I don't need that if i build my own and maintain my own flexible library that is compiler independent.
The way I see it, is that STL gets programmers to comform to a set standard of programing, and in my opinion is error prone and doesn't help. It just simply hides pointer behind iterators. What is really needed is a top down design of how you structure your library files and memory management.
One of the typical example is to have a look at the STL, auto_ptr. From the onset it looks like a good auto pointer, but this is where the STL forces the developer to conform to a bad design. The trouble with auto_ptr is that the ptr itself carries around the reference of the object. So to solve this issue they impliment a safe_ptr and also a nonsafe pointer, you have to type case between the two. The correct design is much more simplier and easier to maintain.
Please tell me you see the issue here. That from a poor design, you have a very complex implimentation. So either, you have the following options.
1. Use the STL, read up about all the books that show you how to use it, effectivly! but shouldn't it be easy to use right away?
2. Roll your own, read up on all the technical specifications that are needed and design a simple flexible system. You will come out of it better.
I really comes to preference really. Do you want to design software, or use API for the rest of your life? How come that John Carmack writes his own librarys, mabe because to his standard everthing else is poorly designed for what he needs?