🚀 go-pugleaf

John Max Skaller<maxtal@suphys.physics.su.oz.au> writes:

>    Unfortunately, there are some misconceptions about STL.
> One is that is OUGHT to be "user friendly".
> 
> -- edited out --
>
>   To make STL into a "user friendly" library is a silly idea.
> Instead, the idea is to use STL to implement a completely separate
> application library.

The idea that a low level library need not be user friendly doesn't 
sustain scrutiny. The fact is, since such a library
will be used again & again & again & .... a very small investment
of time in improving the usability of the library will repay
itself thousands of times over. It is crucial that any library
be well designed from the point of view of the library user. So
instead I see ease-of-use as a design goal for any library.

I don't think STL cuts it in this regard. In fact, one of the
major design goals - to use templates with generic algorithms
to reduce code duplication - is of no interest to users. So
STL is very elegant, very object-oriented, but as a library not
very good. Maybe library designers should read Norman's book
"The design of everyday things" as a reminder of what they ought
not to be doing.

Finally, you have to remember that the intended use of STL isn't
necessarily what it will be used for. You might say that DOS or
UNIX need not be user friendly, because end-users will always
be running "friendlier" programs. But in fact both ended up being
used by end-users directly, which led to the "DOS for Idiots"
and "Unix for Idiots" book industry. Wait for "STL for idiots"
because, like it or not, we WILL have to use it without a nice
app. library wrapper, especially in small projects.

William McIlhagga.


[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]