4 ms·
My last job was as a compiler guy at a large Electronic Design Automation company. The product I worked on was written mostly in C++, but we weren't allowed to
by mtviewdave 15y ago
My last job was as a compiler guy at a large Electronic Design Automation company. The product I worked on was written mostly in C++, but we weren't allowed to use the STL. The reason was that the early versions of the product were written before the STL was stable across all platforms used at the company* (which included things like IBM AIX, HP-PA, etc.). So the original developers (back in the late '90s) wrote a number of container class templates that were used instead. Of course, once those were in place, you had to keep using them, as mixing STL and non-STL containers would have been a maintenance nightmare.
I would suspect there's a lot of old C++ software that falls into this category. Especially if cross-platform compatibility was/is important.
(*Actually, it was often insinuated that the STL is _still_ not 100% compatible between Linux and these more exotic platforms. I have no idea if this is true.)
- signa11 15y agohmm, iirc, there used to be something called stlport by boris-fomitchev (sp ?) a looong time ago. which would allow you to use at least the basic subset of stl (containers/algorithms/iterators) across a wide range of compilers. not sure how relevant it is today...
- copper 15y agoIt still exists, and it's still relevant /if/ you're in the situation Dave above describes - and you have sufficient clout to get stlport included in your code. In almost every other situation where you can actually use the stl, it's probably a better idea to use the libs that come with the compiler.