Re: [boost] Recommended STL implementations for MSVC

From: Victor A. Wagner, Jr. (vawjr_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-17 17:44:41

I'm using Dinkumware's update to the STL for VC.  I like it.  I'm not sure 
I'be put it through it's paces, but ir speeded up my application just by 
switching.

At Sunday 00/12/17 07:36, you wrote:
>[ I've asked this indirectly in a different message, but I'm really
>curious so I thought I'd dig a little deeper. ]
>
>I've read lots about how deficient Microsoft's STL implementation is in
>MSVC 6.  But I also get the impression that despite its flaws, that's
>the implementation that is most heavily used and tested (and worked
>around by library writers such as the boost group).
>
>Does anyone have any opinion about the 'best conforming' and 'safest'
>STL implementations for use with MSVC?  (I realize that these may be
>conflicting goals.)  STLPort looks really interesting to me.
>
>Also, while we're in this general subject area, are there other compilers
>for Win32 which work well and conform better to the standard?
>
>My criteria for 'working well' are:
>- reliable      [ ahh, if it were only this simple ]
>- fast compiles [ I don't see how you can live on Windows without
>                   precompiled headers ]
>- at least some support for the standard Windows headers
>                 [ MFC, ATL, etc. is nice but optional for me ]
>
>Thanks for whatever impressions anyone has.
>
>
>
>

Victor A. Wagner, Jr.
Secretary, Wyoming Libertarian Party
PGP RSA fingerprint = 4D20 EBF6 0101 B069 3817 8DBF C846 E47A
PGP D-H fingerprint = 98BC 65E3 1A19 43EC 3908 65B9 F755 E6F4 63BB 9D93
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
               "There oughta be a law"