«

I am looking for any free libraries which provide a wrapper around or are an
alternative to the STL. I am familiar with Boost and STLSoft. Would anyone
be able to provide other alternatives?

Specifically I am most interested in libraries which have the functionality
of the STL but are easier to learn for beginners.

Thanks in advance all

- Christopher Diggins
http://www.heron-language.com

"christopher diggins" <> wrote in message
news:sG6jd.72648$...
>I am looking for any free libraries which provide a wrapper around or are
>an alternative to the STL. I am familiar with Boost and STLSoft. Would
>anyone be able to provide other alternatives?
>
> Specifically I am most interested in libraries which have the
> functionality of the STL but are easier to learn for beginners.
>

I honestly think you would be better off learning the STL. Given that the
STL is free and standard I think it's pretty much wiped the floor with any
competition. What aspect of it are you having difficultly with?

John

"christopher diggins" <> wrote in message
news:sG6jd.72648$...
> I am looking for any free libraries which provide a wrapper around or are
an
> alternative to the STL. I am familiar with Boost and STLSoft. Would anyone
> be able to provide other alternatives?
>
> Specifically I am most interested in libraries which have the
functionality
> of the STL but are easier to learn for beginners.
>
> Thanks in advance all
>
> - Christopher Diggins
> http://www.heron-language.com

If you are on Windows, then you could just use the MFC (Microsoft Foundation
Classes) which would be adequate for beginner learning. Sort of depends upon
what you are teaching.

-al sung
Rapid Realm Technology, Inc.
Hopkinton, MA

"christopher diggins" <> wrote in message
news:sG6jd.72648$...
> I am looking for any free libraries which provide a wrapper around or are an
> alternative to the STL. I am familiar with Boost and STLSoft. Would anyone
> be able to provide other alternatives?
>
> Specifically I am most interested in libraries which have the functionality
> of the STL but are easier to learn for beginners.
>

Fancy meeting you here!

Here are two alternative container libraries. I'm not sure whether they meet
your requirements, but you might take a look at them:

Nonstandard Template Library (NTL) -- http://www.ntllib.org/index.html

Trolltech Generic Containers -- http://doc.trolltech.com/4.0/containers.html

Jonathan

christopher diggins wrote:
> I am looking for any free libraries which provide a wrapper around or are an
> alternative to the STL. I am familiar with Boost and STLSoft. Would anyone
> be able to provide other alternatives?
>
> Specifically I am most interested in libraries which have the functionality
> of the STL but are easier to learn for beginners.
>
> Thanks in advance all

What do you think needs to be easier ?

The Mariani simplicity/complexity proposition: There exists a minimum
complexity when modelling multiple interactive systems.

Lemma 1. When modelling interactions between multiple systems, there
exists a minimum level of complexity of the interfaces where the overall
complexity of the entire system is also minimal.

In other words, if you make your interfaces too simple, your overall
solution is more complex.

"John Harrison" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "christopher diggins" <> wrote in message
> news:sG6jd.72648$...
>>I am looking for any free libraries which provide a wrapper around or are
>>an alternative to the STL. I am familiar with Boost and STLSoft. Would
>>anyone be able to provide other alternatives?
>>
>> Specifically I am most interested in libraries which have the
>> functionality of the STL but are easier to learn for beginners.
>>
>
> I honestly think you would be better off learning the STL. Given that the
> STL is free and standard I think it's pretty much wiped the floor with any
> competition. What aspect of it are you having difficultly with?
>
> John

Thanks for the offer of help John. I am actually very familiar with the STL,
and I am looking into developing an object-oriented wrapper libray for
people who desire a less intimidating and more "high-level" library.

What frustrates me is that we have a lot of developers using primitive
scripting languages because they are supposedly more "high-level" than C++.
I figured if I could make available a simpler and more object-oriented
wrapper around the Boost and STL then maybe we could put an end to the whole
idea that you need an "agile language" to develop software quickly and
easily.

Christopher Diggins
http://www.cdiggins.com

"Jonathan Turkanis" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "christopher diggins" <> wrote in message
> news:sG6jd.72648$...
>> I am looking for any free libraries which provide a wrapper around or are
>> an
>> alternative to the STL. I am familiar with Boost and STLSoft. Would
>> anyone
>> be able to provide other alternatives?
>>
>> Specifically I am most interested in libraries which have the
>> functionality
>> of the STL but are easier to learn for beginners.
>>
>
> Fancy meeting you here!

lol

> Here are two alternative container libraries. I'm not sure whether they
> meet
> your requirements, but you might take a look at them:
>
> Nonstandard Template Library (NTL) -- http://www.ntllib.org/index.html
>
> Trolltech Generic Containers --
> http://doc.trolltech.com/4.0/containers.html
>
> Jonathan

Hi Jonathan!

Thanks for the links they do definitely help. I wanted to get a good
overview of what is available before I continue with my latest crazy
project. I am looking into use your interfaces classes to implement a set of
efficient object-oriented wrappers around the STL and primitives types.
Essentially I want a more Java style library interface. I am trying to
relight the C++ torch. I'll keep you posted as to how things progress.

- Christopher

"Gianni Mariani" <> wrote in message
news:FtidnWbfxJpenBDcRVn-...
> christopher diggins wrote:
>> I am looking for any free libraries which provide a wrapper around or are
>> an alternative to the STL. I am familiar with Boost and STLSoft. Would
>> anyone be able to provide other alternatives?
>>
>> Specifically I am most interested in libraries which have the
>> functionality of the STL but are easier to learn for beginners.
>>
>> Thanks in advance all
>
> What do you think needs to be easier ?

I just know that the STL does inspire fear and loathing in the uninitiated.
I figure it would be nice to have a polymorphic iterator type. Next there
could probably be more and better defaults, so fewer decisions have to be
made by the programmer. Also it would be nice to have more specializations
which have better performance properties for specific types.

> The Mariani simplicity/complexity proposition: There exists a minimum
> complexity when modelling multiple interactive systems.
>
> Lemma 1. When modelling interactions between multiple systems, there
> exists a minimum level of complexity of the interfaces where the overall
> complexity of the entire system is also minimal.
>
> In other words, if you make your interfaces too simple, your overall
> solution is more complex.

I am familiar with the theory but the STL does not represent a system of
minimal comlexity. It's design goals were primarily efficiency and
genericity.

Christopher Diggins
http://www.cdiggins.com

"Alan Sung" <> wrote in message
news:i57jd.576755$8_6.50920@attbi_s04...
> If you are on Windows, then you could just use the MFC (Microsoft
> Foundation
> Classes) which would be adequate for beginner learning. Sort of depends
> upon
> what you are teaching.

Thanks for the suggestion.

- Christopher Diggins

christopher diggins wrote:
....
>>
>>What do you think needs to be easier ?
>
>
> I just know that the STL does inspire fear and loathing in the uninitiated.
> I figure it would be nice to have a polymorphic iterator type. Next there
> could probably be more and better defaults, so fewer decisions have to be
> made by the programmer. Also it would be nice to have more specializations
> which have better performance properties for specific types.

By polymorphic iterator, do you mean somthing like:

template <typename T>
struct iterator_thing : reference_countable
{
virtual T & operator*() = 0;
// .... plus others
};

template <typename T>
struct any_iterator
{
smart_Ptr< iterator_thing<T> > m_iterator;
virtual T & operator*()
{
return **m_iterator;
}
// .... plus others
};

.....
any_iterator<Foo> iter = my_map.begin();



Which defaults are you thinking about ?

Which specializations are you thinking about ?

....
>>In other words, if you make your interfaces too simple, your overall
>>solution is more complex.
>
>
> I am familiar with the theory but the STL does not represent a system of
> minimal comlexity. It's design goals were primarily efficiency and
> genericity.

Don't we have to compare it to somthing else before we can make
assertions of minimal complexity ?