Subject: Re: STL efficiency (Was: Re: C++ briar patch (Was: Object IDs are bad)) From: Erik Naggum <email@example.com> Date: 1997/05/27 Newsgroups: comp.lang.scheme,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.misc,comp.lang.functional,comp.lang.c++ Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> * Max Moroz -> Richard A. O'Keefe | Well, why do you work from a Draft Standard? You can refer to it in | cases of ambiguity about what is considered portable, and what is not. | In you normal work, however, you should use the documentation provided by | the vendor who supplied your library/compiler/etc (unless the vendor | guarantees full compliance with the standard, which no current compiler | does). I can't speak for Richard, but I prefer to write my software in a language, not a particular product. I strongly prefer knowing how things should work, what constructs should mean, etc, and then augment this by a list of implementation restrictions, bugs, and other deviations. plus a full specification of the (inevitable) implementation-defined features. if this is impossible for some given language and one is expected to keep up with an increasingly erratic set of random features, I consider it a waste of my time to learn to use just a (buggy) product, except in some very special cases (like Emacs and experimental languages). #\Erik -- if we work harder, will obsolescence be farther ahead or closer?