Re: The "STL"

[Alf P. Steinbach]

On 1/11/2016 1:37 AM, Stefan Ram wrote:
> Maybe you have made this experience:
>
> You: STL
> Other person: There is no STL.
> You: What?
> Other person: Nowhere does ISO 14882 use »STL«!
>
> Now, what's the correct name?
>
> Bjarne Stroustrup wrote in around 2007:
>
> »As adopted as the containers and algorithms framework
> of the ISO C++ standard library, the STL consists of a
> ...«.
>
> But I can tell you this: Checked it out,
> ISO 14882 does not contain the words
> »containers and algorithms framework« either!
>
> But it contains, »Containers library«, »Iterators library«,
> and »Algorithms library«.
>
> So we might say, »the container library and the iterators
> library and the algorithms library«.

Depending on the context the “STL” might refer to the Standard Template
Library developed by Stepanov and largely incorporated into the C++
standard library (but it's only a part of the standard C++ library), or
it might refer to Stephan T. Lavavej, who maintains the STL
implementation at Microsoft, and who also maintains a MinGW g++ distro
at <url: http://nuwen.net/stl.html>.

So, this “other person” who apparently denies the existence of the STL
would, if that were the case, be badly uninformed.

But there is a chance that he or she just reacted to an inappropriate
use of the term “STL” to refer to the whole of the C++ standard library.

• • •

Regarding Bjarne, he was clearly referring to the STL subset of the
standard library.

It's worth knowing that it was Bjarne and Stepanov, working together,
who made the STL proposal for the 1998 C++ standardization.

So there's zero chance that he didn't know what he was talking about.

• • •

On a more general note, regarding terminology, I think one should just
be flexible and understanding in what one accepts from others, and more
precise, if possible, in one's own speech and writings.

Those who focus too much on “correct” terminology fail to understand
that there's usually many meanings of a term, some archaic and some more
current, and conversely, that a single concept can be referred to by
many different terms. Even descriptive ones made up at the moment. For
example, at one time the Politically Correct Terminologists™ were
focused on “character code”, which they denied could mean what it means
in e.g. “American Standard Code for Information Interchange”. To any
reasonable intelligent person that's an absurd position, and I guess my
point here is that the Politically Correct Terminologists™ are seldom
reasonably intelligent, or at least they don't act like it.

Thus, if it's clear from context that someone uses “STL” to refer to the
whole C++ standard library, then one should in my opinion accept that.
But also, if there's room for it, one should try to educate the person a
little. E.g., responding “You mean, the C++ standard library, not just
the STL part of it?”


Cheers & hth.,

- Alf

[Gareth Owen]

r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:

> So we might say, »the container library and the iterators
> library and the algorithms library«.

Or we could say "STL" - and have everyone know what we mean - then
acknowledge that as sentient humans our use of language need not
constrained by ISO documents, and go about our day.

[Jorgen Grahn]

You're right of course. Although Stefan Ram /does/ have a point: if
you say "STL", sooner or later someone is going to try to correct you.

I personally avoid the word for that reason.

/Jorgen

--
// Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . .
\X/ snipabacken.se> O o .

[Öö Tiib]

On Tuesday, 12 January 2016 04:39:12 UTC+2, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-01-11, Gareth Owen wrote:
> > r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> >
> >> So we might say, »the container library and the iterators
> >> library and the algorithms library«.
> >
> > Or we could say "STL" - and have everyone know what we mean - then
> > acknowledge that as sentient humans our use of language need not
> > constrained by ISO documents, and go about our day.
>
> You're right of course. Although Stefan Ram /does/ have a point: if
> you say "STL", sooner or later someone is going to try to correct you.
>
> I personally avoid the word for that reason.

All three-letter abbreviations that do not contain letters x, z, q or j are
ambiguous as rule and so should be avoided.

"STL" has such other usages that I have met:
"state logic in PLC-programming",
"programming language for Siemens controllers",
"subtitles file format",
"stereolitography file format".

Also we have often to talk with specialists of other areas and there it is
virtually endless what "STL" may mean for them but nothing of it has
anything to do with C++.

If we want to be incomprehensible for others then that is safer to achieve
by being laconic or silent. Silent idiot looks most wise. ;-)

[Scott Lurndal]

Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> writes:
>On Mon, 2016-01-11, Gareth Owen wrote:
>> r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>
>>> So we might say, »the container library and the iterators
>>> library and the algorithms library«.
>>
>> Or we could say "STL" - and have everyone know what we mean - then
>> acknowledge that as sentient humans our use of language need not
>> constrained by ISO documents, and go about our day.
>
>You're right of course. Although Stefan Ram /does/ have a point: if
>you say "STL", sooner or later someone is going to try to correct you.
>
>I personally avoid the word for that reason.
>

Shakespeare said it best. "Much Ado About Nothing".

Who cares if a pedant corrects you?

[Daniel]

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 9:36:29 AM UTC-5, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>
> Shakespeare said it best. "Much Ado About Nothing".
>

Or as they would say in Newfoundland,

"Lard Tunderin' Jaysus, me b'y, ... that's plain daft."

Daniel

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Tue, 2016-01-12, Öö Tiib wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 January 2016 04:39:12 UTC+2, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-01-11, Gareth Owen wrote:
>> > r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> >
>> >> So we might say, »the container library and the iterators
>> >> library and the algorithms library«.
>> >
>> > Or we could say "STL" - and have everyone know what we mean - then
>> > acknowledge that as sentient humans our use of language need not
>> > constrained by ISO documents, and go about our day.
>>
>> You're right of course. Although Stefan Ram /does/ have a point: if
>> you say "STL", sooner or later someone is going to try to correct you.
>>
>> I personally avoid the word for that reason.
>
> All three-letter abbreviations that do not contain letters x, z, q or j are
> ambiguous as rule and so should be avoided.
>
> "STL" has such other usages that I have met:
> "state logic in PLC-programming",
> "programming language for Siemens controllers",
> "subtitles file format",
> "stereolitography file format".

For many years I thought this chain of gas stations was called "stl",
but it turned out to be a logotype problem:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St1

Vaguely ontopic: avoid mixing 'l' and '1', unless you know the reader has
a really good font.

[Gareth Owen]

sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) writes:

> Shakespeare said it best. "Much Ado About Nothing".
>
> Who cares if a pedant corrects you?

In fact its helpful. If someone depends you distinguish which specific
Standard Template Library you mean, its probably a good clue that you
should run like hell in the other direction.

[woodb...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:42:47 PM UTC-6, gwowen wrote:

Please don't swear here.

Brian
Ebenezer Enterprises
http://webEbenezer.net

[Ian Collins]

woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:42:47 PM UTC-6, gwowen wrote:

Nothing?

> Please don't swear here.

He didn't....

--
Ian Collins

[seeplus]

On Wednesday, January 13, 2016 at 4:15:54 PM UTC+11, Ian Collins wrote:

You missed that naughty "hell" part.
There I have said it again :(

[Öö Tiib]

On Wednesday, 13 January 2016 07:15:54 UTC+2, Ian Collins wrote:
> woodb...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:42:47 PM UTC-6, gwowen wrote:
>
> Nothing?
>
> > Please don't swear here.
>
> He didn't....

Gareth Owen described how one should be scared and run away when
someone asks clarification what is meant by "STL". I am unsure if
it was said sarcastically (that "run like hell" tends to indicate)
or if it is really Gareth's opinion.

[Gareth Owen]

woodb...@gmail.com writes:

> On Tuesday, January 12, 2016 at 1:42:47 PM UTC-6, gwowen wrote:
>
> Please don't swear here.

Hell, no.

[Juha Nieminen]

Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
> You're right of course. Although Stefan Ram /does/ have a point: if
> you say "STL", sooner or later someone is going to try to correct you.
>
> I personally avoid the word for that reason.

The standard library is quite large. The template classes and functions
there are a quite important and fundamental sub-section of it, and it
makes sense to refer to those in many contexts. How should you refer
to them if "STL" is forbidden?

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---

[Jorgen Grahn]

On Mon, 2016-01-18, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> Jorgen Grahn <grahn...@snipabacken.se> wrote:
>> You're right of course. Although Stefan Ram /does/ have a point: if
>> you say "STL", sooner or later someone is going to try to correct you.
>>
>> I personally avoid the word for that reason.
>
> The standard library is quite large. The template classes and functions
> there are a quite important and fundamental sub-section of it, and it
> makes sense to refer to those in many contexts. How should you refer
> to them if "STL" is forbidden?

I never said "forbidden" -- I just said I avoid it in order to avoid
boring controversies about the name.

I find that I rarely have to talk about the STL part of the library:
it's there, it's the most interesting part, and I today can take it
for granted that people know and use it. I try to ignore the few who
don't.

[Daniel]

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 1:50:17 PM UTC-5, Jorgen Grahn wrote:

> I find that I rarely have to talk about the STL part of the library:

> it's there ... people know and use it. I try to ignore the few who don't.

Interesting. If I ignored the ones who don't, just about my entire social circle would be gone.

Daniel

[Jorgen Grahn]

Sorry; I meant on Usenet. In real life, C programmers (for example)
are just as fascinating as whoever agrees with me on the right way to
use C++11. Some of them even like cats ...