Re: Replacement for MS STL?
"Ulrich Eckhardt" <eckhardt@satorlaser.com> wrote in message
news:puqku3-ckd.ln1@satorlaser.homedns.org...
P.J. Plauger wrote:
STLport is also moribund. stlport.org gave up on it years ago,
leaving it to a couple of determined volunteers to keep it going.
See:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/stlport
for their ongoing efforts. We test it regularly, and found that it
hasn't improved in compliance (or correctness) for the past several
years.
Hmmm, I did fix a bug in it, so either your testing methods are flawed or
I
did introduce another bug by doing so....how about a concrete example?
The percentage count has stayed essentially unchanged for years.
A few fixes here and there won't necessarily be significant
among thousands of tests. If you license the source code of our
library you get access to our Quick Proofer, which will tell
you quite a bit about what's wrong with STLport; but we don't
give away test results, particularly to nominal competitors.
Seriously, indeed STLport lay dormant for some time, but calling it dead
(which it isn't)
I said moribund, which is not quite the same as dead. See below.
or claiming that it didn't improve at all (which it did)
I said it hasn't improved in compliance, and I merely implied
"measurably". It's clear that work has been done on tracking
gcc and VC++ releases for packaging; it's less clear that
any serious effort has been made to address conformance
issues.
is downright respectless to the people that are actively putting efforts
into it. Just the fact that you can compile it out of the box with several
modern compilers already shows that this project is far from dead.
I mean no disrespect for the people involved, but I have rather
less respect for the overall system. Go to stlport.org and it'll
tell you that the "Current release version" is 4.6.2, dating from
April 2004. That will *not* work out of the box on quite a few
current compilers. Go to the support forum at that web site and it'll
tell you that it is now in "read-only mode", and has been for much
of the past year. It steers you to sourceforge for "new discussions".
Ask for help there with 4.6.2 and you'll be told in no uncertain
terms that it's obsolete. You're advised instead to get the latest
sourceforge version, called 5.1 RC2, and then you can read about
the problems getting it to work with various systems. New threads
start at the rate of less than one per day, and that't *not*
because it's flawless. While I give full marks to Dumont and
Ovtchenkov for trying to organize new releases, it's pretty clear
that they lack both the time and some of the skills needed to
properly maintain a package of this nature.
Boris Fomitchev benefitted tremendously from the excellent work
done by Matt Austern while at SGI. Fomitchev started STLport with
a nearly complete Standard C++ library acquired at no cost. But
Austern has moved on, and so obviously has Fomitchev. With all
due respect to you and other contributors, the rate of improvement
has fallen way off, and the reasons for choosing STLport over
most other libraries have largely gone away.
From dictionary.com:
moribund \MOR-uh-bund\, adjective:
1. In a dying state; dying; at the point of death.
2. Becoming obsolete or inactive.
I meant what I said and I said what I meant.
P.J. Plauger
Dinkumware, Ltd.
http://www.dinkumware.com