Re: STL, Ada, C++ (Was Re: The Next Microsoft?)

[Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com>]

On Mon, 8 May 2000, Robert Dewar wrote:
> In article
> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0005071606250.9268-100000@shell5.ba.best.com>,
>   Brian Rogoff <bpr@shell5.ba.best.com> wrote:
> > less powerful in some ways, due to the lack of automatic
> > instantiation, more powerful in others.
> 
> I am not at all convinced that automatic instantiation is
> a help to the reader and maintainer, 

What would it take to convince you? That's not a rhetorical question. 

> on the contrary, it
> seems very awkward to have uses of templates not be visible
> from this point of view.

If automatic instantiation were optional, then the client of the generic 
abstraction could decide that if it were awkward, they could explicitly 
instantiate that abstraction. 

The question then shifts to whether it is ever the case that automatic 
instantiation is a benefit to the reader, and if it is worth the
implementation effort. 

> Sure it is a convenience for the writer, but I never consider
> that a significant factor.

I disagree. If it isn't damaging to readability and maintainability, or 
if one thinks the tradeoff there is favorable, I think considering 
convenience for the writer is reasonable.

-- Brian