On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:07:23PM +0100, Duncan Simpson wrote: > In my experience if you do not know who has a reference to an object and what > the scope of those references are the code is almost certaintly wrong anyway. > Heavy STL users might not be so lucky but that may be just my prejudice. I > often want a variantion on a structure on an unusual operation to be > particularly fast so end up deciding STL is unsuitable and doing it manually > instead. I think this results in faster and cleaner code in most cases.
I usually end up with one hand-made container and 20 std::containers... As I profile my stuff at least for things that are likely to run for a couple of week I don't have the impression that hand-made containers are worth the trouble in general. > Of coure my view might be due to PRG propaganda and PRG are not OO fans. Actually, there are two aspects of OO: Encapsulation and Inheritance. And while I am a big fan of the former I avoid the latter if possible. Now I don't know whether this puts me in the 'OO fan block'. > Yes, I know there is a certain amount of flame bait here. I will evn > add to it by saying that the UML descirption is dangeruous ambiguous and > the use of UML can only obfusciate any problem. Objects sending messages > to each other are very nasty to analyse and UML just about makes it > impossiblke by being vague on some critical points. Be warned that I have > some reasons for the UML deflamation :-) I've seen no flame bait so far... Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
