On 4 Apr 2001, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> Lars> lyxstring is a hack.
>
> Please don't be too impressed by all those big guys in commitees.
I agree with Jean-Marc, Juergen, Allan, and the others.
Lgb, this time, I think you are simply wrong.
An almost conformant, but really useful lyxstring is way better than a
bloated, but maybe 99% conformant std::string. The few problems that
lyxstring has in real life should be easy to fix.
Read the latest issue of C++ Users Journal for another take on the
conformance argument. It seems obvious that the time is premature to
let conformance be a main deciding argument these days. Issues such as
compile time, footprint, and runtime performance are very much
important, and will remain so for a long, long time.
If you don't care about those issues, you should not waste your time
with C++, and go directly to Haskell or ML. Those languages are
semantically well defined, contrary to C++, and most implementations
are 99% conformant, compared to the lousy conformance of even the
most conformant "state-of-the-art" C++ compiler. Also, it is questionable
if there will ever be a 100% conformant C++ compiler, given the huge
and at the same time vague semantics.
Finally, C++ will never reach the same level of abstraction as those
languages, so don't fool yourself.
Abandoning lyxstring would be a huge regression at this point in time.
Greets,
Asger
