Re: C++... is it dying?
Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> wrote:
Daniel T. wrote:
Then when someone asked why you don't switch from what you
know to this "new improved" library, you would look at all the code you
already have written, all the evidence that your containers work and
work well, and ask "why bother?"
If someone is starting a new project from scratch, why should he not
use what the STL has to offer? There's no "switch" to anything.
A lot of C++ engines, frameworks and libraries were developed long
before STL burst on the scene and they solved all the problems STL
solves. Why should they dump all that hard work, that works?
Why shouldn't a new C++ engine, framework or library use the STL?
Why build a new one when we already have one that works quite well, and
has already been ported to five different architectures? Why would
someone start a new project from scratch and not take advantage of any
of the libraries in existence (many of which *don't* use the STL because
they are older than the STL?)
Why use STL constructs when a majority of the programmers in the
software house don't know them? Talk about maintenance nightmare!
I like the STL and I think that many of the solutions it embodies are
better than the ones my company uses, but why should I write code that
only I understand? Why should I have to deal with the extra complexity
of converting from STL classes to the in-house classes and back again?