Re: (OT) Re: memory management

[Ingo Ruhnke <grumbel@gmx.de>]

Bert Peers <rat@larian.com> writes:

> Steve Baker wrote:

>> Templates generate code 'behind your back' - and technology of
>> current linkers an debuggers doesn't make them very stable in
>> practical implementations.

Don't know what you mean, all these vector<>, list<>, etc. stuff is
all implemented as templates and I had never problems with them.
 
> Well, I can't comment on that, but the STL seems to be stable enough for the
> Clanlib guys (they're throwing out their Common class set), and so far I never
> encountered any troubles with templates either (under VC++)...

STL is afaik stable in the current gcc and in egcs, some more advacent
stuff is not supported at the moment, but stuff like string, vector,
list doesn't look to cause any problems. 
And about the Common class set of ClanLib, it was build at a time were
there was no STL (remember ISO-C++ is relativly new) and now when we have
a working STL is getting obsolete.

> I'm not sure why templates would be harder to debug and maintain
> than a tenfold implementation of the same functionality, once for
> integers, once for class Foo, class Bar, char* etc :^)

Yep agree, how should vector<> and friends be implemented without
templates?

-- 
                                  http://dark.x.dtu.dk/~grumbel/pingus/ | 
Ingo Ruhnke <grumbel@gmx.de>             http://home.pages.de/~grumbel/ |
------------------------------------------------------------------------+