[openbeos] Re: BString
- From: "Michael Phipps" <mphipps1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2001 22:43:37 -0500
>On Sat, 2001-11-10 at 12:59, Daniel Reinhold wrote:
[snip]
>A class too heavy for usage describes the entire STL. I use the STL
>because it is 'standard' only when I have to. I have a library of my own
>classes that I use for speed.
Yeah - I think that the STL seems a little ... over engineered for me.
Templates are an interesting idea. But they are a pain to use, make the
compiler's
error strings *completely* impossible to read, and I don't even want to think
about the efficiency of the code. Plus, since they try (out of the goodness of
their hearts) to hide the algorithm, unless you find documentation about
the costs of a particular operation, you have to guess.
>[snip]
>I properly agree with this. The idea is to make it better the current
>BString. Easy and simple to use along with the speed factor.
Agreed.
>This is all from someone who just returned a couple of hours ago from a
>programming contest and is brain fried from using things like the STL.
>You don't have time to build your own stack/string/etc...
I didn't know people still did those. I was in one many years back.
>Do we plan to implemnt a BStack, BQueue, B<whatever>? I think planning
>these things to take the place of bloated STL for quicker would be wise.
I hadn't thought about that. I guess the big question would have to be how to
make them type safe yet better than STL. If someone has a good idea, please,
let's
talk about it here.
>I have to sleep now.
>
>--
>
>~Travis Smith
>Programmer / Administrator
>sage at ieee dot org
>
>-- Attached file included as plaintext by Listar --
>
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
>Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
>Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
>
>iD8DBQA77fFl6EbkKsFTF7kRAvLpAJ9W9Ew2lFzr+U+ZA/D5BnLvISiQIQCfWi1H
>oY1MLDZb2Sfwz8+oU2oj7Nw=
>=HU+Z
>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
>
Other related posts:
