3 ms·

> Large parts of the standard library are designed badly. That's true, but IMO it's useful to study the standard library to understand what it offers, as oppos

• Const-me 9y ago
  People who spent many years developing C++ already understand what the standard library offers, regardless on whether they studied that deliberately. People coming to the language lack the expertise to tell well-designed code from bad-designed. It’s tempting to treat the whole standard library as an example of the former. Maybe that’s a personal thing but I remember doing that when I just started my career back in 2000. STL wasn’t quite there but MFC was already in wide use. Because I lacked the experience I considered whatever’s there is good, and ended up using not so good parts such as C++ exceptions and macro-driven dynamic serialization.
  • DoofusOfDeath 9y ago
    > People who spent many years developing C++ already understand what the standard library offers That statement isn't true for (at least) me. The main reason is that I'm usually working on code that must be compile-able as C++11, and/or may require an old-ish version of gcc's standard C++ library. So in my daily work I usually have little/no reason to interact with the newer parts of the standard library.