Re: Why C++ is vastly superior to C
"Krice" <paulkp@mbnet.fi>
On 16 touko, 20:36, Lynn McGuire <l...@winsim.com> wrote:
I could not live without the Standard Template Library.
Mostly because core C++ doesn't have something like std::string
or vector.
String could very well be a simple class, but how do you create a good
vector without templates? Do you suggest to go back to only have the
"Object-based" polymorphic array? Even java failed miserably on that point,
if you recall the hype raving that templates are not good and would never
make it into a cool language of theirs. Finally generics were incorporated
around 1.5 -- mainly to cover the mass problems with collections. :-)
If I need to write a template (beside using STL)
I know there is something wrong with the class hierarchy.
The most ubiquitous problem with class hierarchy is thet you don't need one
in the first place.
Sure, having hierarchy is great for some particular cases, I both used and
wrote such, but it is in minority by far.
It's like using cast, you know it's a workaround to a design error.
I don't see any likeness. Hierarchy is good for runtime polymorphism, while
templates cover the common case where the type is fixed at compile time.