Re: how to design a replacement for C++
"?? Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>
Especially long he goes on about std::map's operator []. His long
speech about its "Ha-ha" downsides felt longer than to read the <map>
header (350 lines or so).
Length of <map> is quite irrelevant. Do you defend its interface design?
In my experience it is pretty broken. Sure why stop at std::map, MOST of the
standard lib is poor quality, and it is very sad. I try to think a list of
what is good, and nothing emerges except for vector. And guess how many of
us had vector-like classes before the standard.
The point f the standard lib would have been to give good support out of the
box -- and it more like creates pain only. At least if used "alone".
Sure you can patch it up with your own exrtensions or popular existing
libs -- but that we could do without standard lib, could we?
I recall back in 96-97 most voces pushed "give us a standard NOW", whatever
it takes. Possibly me too. Did not turned up as a good idea in retrospect.
:-((((
So seems ordinary whiner. If that Avery Pennarun could code he could
write some pennarun::map behaving like he wants quicker than all the
obsenities he wrote about standard one.
Sure, I have bunch of my classes that are good, and used many libraries,
just if you work on a project where using the standard lib was decided, it
is pretty hard to go ahead. Either having different classes side-by-side,
or replacing the existing ones. (certainly the story of map is a dwarf
compared to std::string)