Am 01.06.2013 16:24, schrieb Benjamin Thaut:I used to have that experience even with C, when I started using it around 1994. C++ was even worse between CFront, ARM and ongoing standardization work.
Am 01.06.2013 01:30, schrieb Manu:
On 1 June 2013 09:15, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com
<mailto:bearophileHUGS@lycos.com>> wrote:
Manu:
On 1 June 2013 01:12, bearophile <bearophileHUGS@lycos.com
<mailto:bearophileHUGS@lycos.com>> wrote:
Manu:
Frankly, this is a textbook example of why STL is the
spawn of satan. For
some reason people are TAUGHT that it's reasonable to
write code like
this.
There are many kinds of D code, not everything is a high
performance
ray-tracer or 3D game. So I'm sure there are many many
situations where
using the C++ STL is more than enough. As most tools, you
need to know
where and when to use them. So it's not a Satan-spawn :-)
So why are we having this conversation at all then if faster
isn't better in this instance?
Faster is better in this instance.
What's wrong is your thinking that the STL as the spawn of Satan in
general.
Ah, but that's because it is ;)
Rule of thumb: never use STL in tight loops. problem solved (well,
mostly)...
I have to agree here. Whenever you have a codebase that has to work on 9
platforms and 6 compilers the S in STL vanishes. Also the
implementations are so varying in quality that you might get really good
performance on one platform but really bad on another. It seems like
everyone in the games industry avoids STL like the plague.
Kind Regards
Benjamin Thaut
As for STL, I can assure that HPC guys are huge fans of STL and Boost.
At least when I did my traineeship at CERN (2003-2004) that was the case.