Reason for -no-stl in qt-copy configure recommendation?

[Marcus Camen]

> > Perhaps antlr and cql are not the best examples, but (at least with
> > antlr) you have to read the source to figure out many things. (Further,
> > newcomers to KDE/QT development would atleast have heard of the STL; the
> > learning curve is not so steep for them.) Apart from std::vector<bool>,
> > STL code is probably of as high a quality as QTL for most reasonable
> > implementations.
>
>     There is no significant learning curve for Qt.  It's *trivial* in
> comparison to STL.  Also, you cannot talk about "most reasonable
> implementations".  KDE has to work and be developed on MANY platforms, not
> just gcc/linux.  HP-UX, AIX, Solaris, *BSD, Tru64, IRIX, for instance. 
> Have you used STL on all of those?  I've used it on all but Tru64.  I've
> also used Qt on all of those but Tru64.

I want to stress this. The degree of support for the STL is quite different on 
different UNIX platforms. Some features are simply not implemented others are 
buggy.
To work with QT is really great on those platforms because QTL is something 
you can rely on.  The STL implementaion is different everywhere --- and you 
don't know to what extend.

@George: I feel you pain...   :-)

--
Marcus