Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.genetic,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.c++
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!csulb.edu!news.sgi.com!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!ddsw1!news.mcs.net!van-bc!sqwest!dseibert
From: dseibert@sqwest.bc.ca (David Seibert)
Subject: Re: standardization (Re: Lisp versus C++ for AI. software)
Message-ID: <1996Oct7.173834.29488@sqwest.bc.ca>
Organization: SoftQuad Inc., Surrey, B.C. CANADA
References: <udranea44f.fsf@post.math.grin.edu> <3257fa7e.7147169@news-win.rinet.ru> <ud7mp2hpq7.fsf@post.math.grin.edu>
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 17:38:34 GMT
Lines: 18
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:41293 comp.ai.genetic:9853 comp.ai.neural-nets:33854 comp.lang.lisp:23040 comp.lang.c++:217314

In article <ud7mp2hpq7.fsf@post.math.grin.edu> John David Stone <stone@math.grin.edu> writes:
>
>        One of the first lessons that novice programmers should learn is
>the one about not re-inventing the wheel.  C++ textbooks that spend half of
>their pages laboriously constructing poorly-designed versions of classes
>that are already in the STL are setting a very bad example.

Point taken.  However, example code for classes that are already in
standards is relatively easy to find, and textbook authors don't want to
reinvent the wheel, either.  Until someone writes a book with better
examples, authors won't change their behavior (and then they'll just try to
copy the better book :-).  Plus, if an author came up with really useful
example classes, he/she could probably make more money by *not* publishing
them in a textbook before they had already been implemented by someone who
would pay real money for the privilege.

David Seibert

