6 ms·
You're being very nonspecific again, but I'll assume that your specific criticism is that C++ should have standardized STL collections sooner. I agree, but it d
by pcwalton 10y ago
You're being very nonspecific again, but I'll assume that your specific criticism is that C++ should have standardized STL collections sooner. I agree, but it doesn't imply that it should have baked them directly into the language syntax!
I can't think of a single language that had problems with incompatible core collections due to having them be in the library as opposed to directly in the language. The closest thing I can think of is Haskell's explosion of String types, but one of the lessons to take from that is precisely the opposite of what Go chose—it's pernicious partially because the suboptimal String is baked into the language, and the overloaded strings extension is necessary to correct this!
- stcredzero 10y agoI'll assume that your specific criticism is that C++ should have standardized STL collections sooner. You assumed wrong. I can't think of a single language that had problems with incompatible core collections due to having them be in the library So? Who said that? Not me! And actually, Smalltalk did have some collection incompatibilities across vendors. (#at:put: returning the inserted value in one impementation while it returned the collection in other ones.) But the implementations of those weren't completely in the library. (You could treat them as such, however.)