[lug] C++ libraries in Linux

[Tkil]

>>>>> "Tkil" == Tkil <tkil at scrye.com> writes:

Tkil> the online [STL] references, however, are free.  :)

>>>>> "Luke" == "S. Luke Jones" <luke at frii.com> writes:

Luke> What online references might those be?

>>>>> "DS" == D Stimits <stimits at idcomm.com> writes:

DS> http://www.sgi.com/Technology/STL/

this one.

DS> MFC is a pain in the butt. I don't know what he actually
DS> contributed to that, but I would guess most authors there had
DS> their hands tied and couldn't really code the way they'd like it
DS> to be.

the MFC are mostly bletcherous due to their age, and the very limited
"vocabulary" of C++ at that time (about 10 years ago).  no templates,
no standard library other than the C one.  their collection classes
were of the Smalltalk school (everything is of type Object
["CObject"?], and that's what you have to cast to and from to get type
safety); they made use of macro hackery, and their IDE made further
use of fragile text-based things.

considering the investment that MS made into keeping things backwards
compatible, it's not surprising that MFC has evolved into something
nasty.  i'm not sure what form it's in these days, but the OWL toolkit
(the borland "equivalent" to MFC) seemed a little classier the last
time i dealt with the two of them (which would have been 5+ years ago,
so...)

either way, keep in mind that MFC was created before templates and
exceptions were widely available in C++, let alone the STL and the
now-standar libraries.

t.