3 ms·

On the other hand, std::string already existed back then, but they still chose to reimplement it. This points to a more systemic problem in the C++ ecosystem.

by Aeolos 11y ago

On the other hand, std::string already existed back then, but they still chose to reimplement it. This points to a more systemic problem in the C++ ecosystem. Has C++ evolved to the point where, say, a new library written today would not have to redefine std::string?

vidarh 11y ago
It existed, but if you wanted interoperate with your older code, or wanted to run on various platforms, it often would not be available, or bugfree enough or fast enough. It was well after 2000 before everyone started trusting that they'd have a reasonably conformant C++98 environment. You'd still find people start new std::string alternatives up until then, for seemingly good reasons. Some of them valid, some of hem not so much. Today I don't think anyone would redefine std::string, but I haven't written much C++ for years.
jasode 11y ago
The standard was finalized in 1998 but the implementations on a wide variety of necessary platforms didn't happen until later. Qt's QString predated 1998. Also, this SO q&a has more tidbits: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1618798/why-is-there-a-different-string-class-in-every-c-platform-out-there http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1618798/why-is-there-a-di...
unscaled 11y ago
Not it didn't. The work on Qt standard on 1991, according to Wikipedia. The work on STL only started in 1994 and became a standard with C++98, and even then it took time for compilers to get decent standard support. So every library needed its own string implementation. New libraries generally use C++ string, unless they're have very strong opinions about performance that trump interoperability (e.g. Facebook's folly). But seriously, isn't that hypocrite to blame old C++ libraries for implementing their own string class, and then go espousing C? C of all languages - the language whose spartan standard library includes almost nothing (including usable string processing code, if you care even slightly about securing your code from memory errors), and each respectable C project ends up implementing their own lists, queues, maps, stacks and of course strings.

by Aeolos 11y ago

vidarh 11y ago

It existed, but if you wanted interoperate with your older code, or wanted to run on various platforms, it often would not be available, or bugfree enough or fast enough. It was well after 2000 before everyone started trusting that they'd have a reasonably conformant C++98 environment. You'd still find people start new std::string alternatives up until then, for seemingly good reasons. Some of them valid, some of hem not so much. Today I don't think anyone would redefine std::string, but I haven't written much C++ for years.

jasode 11y ago

The standard was finalized in 1998 but the implementations on a wide variety of necessary platforms didn't happen until later. Qt's QString predated 1998. Also, this SO q&a has more tidbits: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1618798/why-is-there-a-different-string-class-in-every-c-platform-out-there http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1618798/why-is-there-a-di...

unscaled 11y ago

Not it didn't. The work on Qt standard on 1991, according to Wikipedia. The work on STL only started in 1994 and became a standard with C++98, and even then it took time for compilers to get decent standard support. So every library needed its own string implementation. New libraries generally use C++ string, unless they're have very strong opinions about performance that trump interoperability (e.g. Facebook's folly). But seriously, isn't that hypocrite to blame old C++ libraries for implementing their own string class, and then go espousing C? C of all languages - the language whose spartan standard library includes almost nothing (including usable string processing code, if you care even slightly about securing your code from memory errors), and each respectable C project ends up implementing their own lists, queues, maps, stacks and of course strings.