In article <3lc8dg$706@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>, Marian Corcoran (mcorcora@ix.netcom.com) writes:
>I see quite a bit of discussion here about the style of STL, which is
>valuable in that it helps people get a handle on STL.
>
>     I am not completely certain about this, but if one steps back a
>minute to understand what has happened here, it is that STL somehow
>combines component programming technology and "C++ technology."  Earlier
>on, C++ data structures class libraries took a Smalltalk approach, with
>inheritance hierarchies that made things difficult to understand and
>use.  The trend was then to "flatten out" the hierarchy.  It is not
>surprising that the style of STL is somewhat different (I would almost
>expect it to be), but the real question to me is "Is it workable?"
>Intuitively, I sense it is.  I still need to examine it further.
                                              ^^^^^^^
Yes, do "examine" the STL, but write some code, too.  One of the
nicest characteristics of the STL (IMHO) is that code development
feels natural, the resulting code seems very readable and
maintainable, and there appear to be few bugs.  Subjective
value-judgements to be sure, but important none the less.

-- Beman    (beman@dawes.win.net)