Talk:Standard Template Library

message: Mention STL Port?
71.241.55.247 02:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  STL port 

message: Why are the container adaptors (queue, priority_queue, and stack) not mentioned? They're in the specification. Herorev 06:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Standard_Template_Library&diff=315855166&oldid=314347616 Enerjazzer (talk) 04:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  container adaptors 

message: The parameter binding constructs for function objects don't work with references (&), although they work with values and pointers. That once sent me debugging for days, until I discovered what it was and that it was a known issue. If I remember right, that is being adressed in the new standard, not sure though. It does work in boost, however. 217.111.33.2 (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is being addressed by deprecating bind1st and bind2nd in favor of std::bind (boost::bind). decltype (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More criticism - bind 

message: * Any reason for not adding MSDN's STL reference?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zvirack (talk • contribs) 08:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're free to modify the section as you see fit. — Frecklefoot | Talk 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links section 

message: Probably the most useful and most used part of STL is the vector container.  I think it is a significant criticism that vector has speed inefficiencies when compared to use of C arrays and memmove.  There has been quite a bit of discussion of this in various forums which has generated more heat than light.  This would be the ideal place to clarify this.
Note that this criticism is often dismissed as poor use of vector.  Indeed in many cases judicious use of vector::reserve() would resolve it.  However, there are still many situations where vector is less than ideal.  For example, it is the reason that vector itself is never used in the implementation of deque.
BTW I agree with the above discussion under "Strange Criticism section".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.131.5 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism: Efficiency of vectors 

message: :"The STL was created as the first library of generic algorithms and data structures for C++, with four ideas in mind: generic programming, abstractness without loss of efficiency, the Von Neumann computation model, and value semantics."
*What does the Von Neumann computation model have to do with STL?
*What is meant with value semantics?
Thanks, --Abdull (talk) 13:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  value semantics means that the STL containers physically hold their elements and manage their lifetime, e.g. an object can't exist longer than the container that contains it. It also means that an object can't be element of several containers at once. Opposite is reference semantics, when containers hold references/pointers to objects that are managed (created/destroyed) externally. Note that if you have a copyable reference type (examples are pointers (both plain and smart like boost::shared_ptr) or structures like boost::ref) you can store them as objects in value-based containers while the referenced objects are managed outside, as well as having several reference objects (maybe in different containers) referencing the same actual object - so in presence of copyable reference types value-based containers can serve as reference-based containers as well. Enerjazzer (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Von Neumann architecture. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What prevents STL on running on hypothetical non-Von-Neumann computer, for example the one with separate memory for instructions and data? Interesting though that it doesn't really matter for Wikipedia, what matters is an appropriate citation. Ipsign (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background questions 

message: Article claims that first implementations werent thread safe, but AFAIK current ones aren also. Only thread safety guarantee is that multiple readers can read without problems, but multiple writes are undefined behavior.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.82.38 (talk) 13:44, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thread safety 

message: There's  an ongoing discussion about whether Standard Template Library is a proper noun or not. Please express your opinion. 1exec1 (talk) 17:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Template Library: proper noun or not? 

message: Is this about the elements of the C++ standard library that were originally inspired by and modeled after parts of STL, or is it about STL and its legacy? It seems like that page can't decide: it opens talking about STL in present tense, but describes the long-abandoned library, then it lists some of the C++ containers, many of which were once modeled after the interfaces defined in STL, then it vaguely mentions iterators, algorithms, and functors (vague enough to fit either focus), and then talks about the history of the actual STL until the first C++ standard. Then there's the low-quality 'criticisms' section, and then there's a list that mixes STL implementations with C++ libraries, some of which aren't STL implementations (missing things like rope, compose2, select1st, 3-way compare, random_sample, bit_vector, Monoid, not to mention all the changes and extensions of the STL-based content in the C++ library that occurred in the last 15 years). --Cubbi (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is this page supposed to be about? 

message: The History section states that real programming languages didn't support generic programming before 1979. ML supported it several years before then, as noted in the Generic programming article. Don Biggles (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Generic programming before 1979 

message: EASTL is not a proper STL implementation, . Marcofoco (talk) 17:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementations 

message: Some people use STL as just a short form of "STandard Library"... And there are some other misconceptions... See pop http://stackoverflow.com/a/5205571/287948  --Krauss (talk) 01:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a "not to be confused with" warning at the top of the page. Maybe more in the text can be clarified. Wqwt (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please "emphasize the difference between “STL” and “C++ Standard Library” 

message: I am amazed that Boost is not explicitly credited with improving the STL. This is, at a minimum, unfair and in my opinion actually dishonest...or at least unethical.40.142.185.108 (talk) 16:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the other way around? STL was created in the 90s and lots of features went into Boost. Wqwt (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boost