From: Ed Brey (brey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-18 01:06:37
From: "Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]>
>> [Which STL to use with VC?]
> 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
I haven't tried the latest Dinkumware code, largely because I was so
dissapointed with the version that ships with VC6. It is nonstandard, slow,
bloated, unreadable, buggy, and not well supported. However, I have tried
STLport and have been very happy with it. In particular, STLport has the
following strengths over the VC6 Dinkumware implementation:
1. In STLport, constructs like std::size_t, std::min, std::max,
std::auto_ptr, and std::vector<bool> are named and work as per the Standard.
2. STLport uses an optimized allocator (meaning classes like map and list
blow the socks off the Dinkumware's since its naively calls malloc).
3. STLport properly separates code that depends on template parameters from
code that does not to avoid bloat.
4. STLport uses full length, regular English names.
5. STLport generates far fewer warnings.
6. I'm sure STLport isn't bug free, but at least it doesn't have gaping bugs
that prevent code like this from working:
l.insert(l.end(), v.begin(), v.end());
VC6 Dinkumware bombs out on this, even with the no-incremental-cost fixes
that are available. The fixes only address a handful of bugs.
Items 1 and 6 are important to Boost. With STLport, there is no problem,
whereas we have to specifically put in workarounds in order to achieve
compatibility with out-of-the-box VC6SP4.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk