|
|
|
|
|
by ryandrake
1624 days ago
|
|
I've also never worked in a C++ place that didn't make their own core libraries, but when you ask, their rationale for building and maintaining their own libraries (as opposed to using the Standard Library) is often very weak. It's usually based on very outdated assumptions and Cargo Cutting, such as "the STL[1] is slow (but we haven't profiled ours to prove it's faster)." Or "We need our own string type because decades ago, there was something that std::string didn't do." Or "Our founding developer didn't like templates, so he build this vast copy of the standard library but using explicit data types." (yes I've heard all of these "reasons") 1: Just calling it "the STL" is a key sign of living in the past--pretty much nobody uses the actual STL anymore: What we use is called the C++ Standard Library. |
|
I won't deny your prior, but my prior is that people who complain about the use of the word "STL" to mean "C++ Standard Library" (and ignore that the latter is 10 times as many keystrokes) do so only to flaunt their knowledge, not because anyone actually experiences confusion nowadays.
Supporting evidence: https://github.com/microsoft/STL