Boost logo

Boost :

From: Mike Sackett (msackett_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-12-18 15:03:33

I will avoid making further inquiries along these lines on this mailing
list. Thanks to everyone, though, for the very informative responses that
have been posted so far.

On Mon, 18 Dec 2000, Beman Dawes wrote:

> 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.
> --Beman
> 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, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at