> > Perhaps I was ruined at a young age by the Java collections framework > (all the more so with generics), but I'd have to agree with Dave. I > know STL is uber powerful, but so is assembly. If you really want to > get down to it, everything you can do in C++ can be done in assembly; > it's just a bunch of syntactic sugar. >
And this is where I differ from many programmers. If there was a 300 or 400 level CS class in ARM or x86 assembly I would take it in a minute. I agree some languages add so much natural and artificial sweetener it'd > make any programmer diabetic (*cough* Perl *cough*), but I wouldn't mind > some sweet additions to the STL (like comprehensible compiler errors for > one) to make it more palatable. > I agree with the compiler errors. Unfortunately that is a side effect of how C++ templates are implemented. Still, in spite of that I find them (mostly) useful.
-------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
