4 ms·
He started working on it 2001/2002, at that time, C++ implementations of the standard library were poor and inconsistent across compilers. There is a reason tha
by FigBug 13y ago
He started working on it 2001/2002, at that time, C++ implementations of the standard library were poor and inconsistent across compilers. There is a reason that pretty much every library from that era redid all the basic classes - Qt, MFC, etc. When I learnt C++ it didn't have std::string.
- asveikau 13y agoQt and MFC are quite a bit older than 2001/2002. It makes sense to avoid std::string in the early or mid 90s. By 2001, though...
- icefox 13y agoEven std::string today isn't perfect and on more than one project I have replaced it. :\
- malkia 13y agoI find QByteArray and QString more useful and complete than std::string, yet we keep our interfaces to std::string or const char*, since this would reduce external dependencies for other folks that want to use the library (also the learning process, and less include files).