From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-18 11:02:01
That's really far off topic for this mailing list.
It is tempting to ask such questions on boost, because there are a lot of
experts, but we really need to keep focused on boost related issues.
At 08:36 AM 12/17/2000 -0600, Mike Sackett 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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk