You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010)

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by pjmlp on Thursday February 27, 2020 @05:05AM (#22432031)

The S in STL stands for Standard, something that neither boost nor Abseil are, or will ever be.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by kllrnohj on Thursday February 27, 2020 @04:19PM (#22438025)

Being in the standard doesn't mean they are good or should be used.

java.util.Vector is standard as well but you'd be laughed out of a code review if you tried to use it anywhere. Similarly std::auto_ptr is in the standard, and is universally agreed to be trash to avoid like the plague. So much so it was (eventually) removed. The container section of the library has just sadly not had the same deprecation & removal of bad code put into it.

The claim was "STL containers are the sane default" not that "STL containers are more available". I stand by that claim being wrong. You have so far not actually attempted to counter it on any technical grounds, just bad appeal to authority fallacies.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:You can't make C++ not ugly, but you can't not try (2010) by pjmlp on Thursday February 27, 2020 @04:38PM (#22438230)

Except that java.util.Vector is for backwards compatibility and everyone should use java.util.ArrayList instead.

Likewise std::auto_ptr got replaced by std::unique_ptr.

As you see the standard library keeps the knowledgable developers covered, no need to look elsewhere.

You are indeed wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]