Re: [gtkmm] Talk about a major rewrite

[Carl Nygard <cjnygard fast net>]

On Wed, 2002-07-31 at 09:14, P. Christeas wrote:
> 
> > > At this point of discussion I don't expect to look into the code. That's
> > > why I don't refer to particular bugs. My questions are:
> > > - do the design pitfals constitute the need for a re-design?
> >
> > What design pitfalls? Give us specifics.
> 
> [flame-starter..]
> I personally avoid stl. It introduces too many code lines for the simplest 
> things. The compiler then is pushed and more likely to mis-interpret things 
> (the gcc 3.1 problems etc.). Moreover, the core code is less human-readable.
> 
> One more thing is that of iterators. By referring to an object with its 
> pointer, bad coding results in havoc. One example is when I deleted an object 
> and the iterator was still around. It is very diffficult to check the 
> consistency of data holded by pointers. On the other hand, integer indexes of 
> C lists are easier to debug. Giving a bad index can be recognized at once. 
> Indexes are slower, but much safer. It will be the app's fault when such a 
> thing happens, but the API must indicate the trouble.

[flame-fanner]
Is this a troll?  Replace "iterator" with "pointer" and you're talking
about general "problems" with pointers existing after the referent is
destroyed.  Perhaps you'd like to try C# or Java?

STL provides more than iterators, it provides proven algorithms and data
structures with type-safety.  Giving up the type safety is like using
K&R instead of ANSI. Do you enjoy re-implementing lists and binary
trees?