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

[Luis Pedro Coelho]

Le Mardi 29 Avril 2003 19:27, Guillaume Laurent a écrit :
> Everybody agrees the STL is harder to use and less well documented than Qt.

I don't.

It is less intuitive at first than Qt because it's model is different than 
most people expect ( works on ranges, not containers directly ). But once you 
get the hang of it, it is very nice. The containers are better designed as 
well, IMHO.

The problem with STL is the different qualities of implementations. Good 
implementations are better than QTL, bad implementations are worse. The trend 
is towards good implementations, however.

As for the documentation, both http://www.dinkumware.com/refxcpp.html and 
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/libstdc++/documentation.html do a wonderful job 
IMO. Plus, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect a C++ programmer to 
have a basic grasp of STL.

The error message problem is a real one. Although a good implementation (of 
lib and compiler) does help there as well.

Regards,
-- 
Luis Pedro Coelho

check out my game of hearts for the KDE at

http://hearts.sf.net