Standard library of Cpp uses templates extensively. So both terms are used interchangeably.
I really wish MS hadn't called the repo stl, it just adds to the confusion.
Scott Meyers wrote a book called “Effective STL”, and there’s a somewhat-similar-interface library named https://github.com/electronicarts/EASTL - neither of these lead to confusion.
I'm sorry, but effective communication is valuable and it is annoying that your employer continues to conflate the C++ standard library and the STL. Are we going to start referring to the standard library as "boost" a few years hence? That's basically the situation we've ended up in here.
Yes, effective communication is valuable. I have been working on this library for over a decade and I find that the short, memorable acronym ultimately makes it easier to talk about the thing.
That said, we are primarily using the acronym for the repo URL and the directory structure; the readme makes it clear that this is “also known as” the STL.
It's anecdotal but there certainly is a strong spirit of getting it right. I guess it's a characteristic of people working with it. In cpp details like that matter a lot.
I personally would feel more sympathy towards naming msvc implementation after your initials, then it could be even called STL library =D. Same effect with better motivation imho. Cheers.
Very cool release, but confusing naming. I'm sure it's longstanding practice at Microsoft, but maybe instead of saying "also known as the STL," it would be more clear to say, "which we also call the STL."
Anyway, I'm looking forward to poking around this code.
> it’s a perfectly valid use of metonymy
and I'm not really sure what it means. I appreciate the wikipedia link and understand what metonymy is, but at the end of the day, metonymy is a figure of speech and formal technical writing discourages the use of extraneous figures of speech that don't serve any purpose, preferring clear technical language. If not this, then what does an invalid use of metonymy look like?
An invalid use would be one that is not widely recognized. For example, referring to our library as MSVCP. That’s the name (minus version) of our DLL, but very few people recognize it as such.
So... not here? ("Standard library" and "STL" are about the same number of syllables).
I still think metonymy is a bit besides the point. The explanation "Using STL in place of the standard library is a perfectly valid use of metonymy, which is a type of rhetorical device, which is typically avoided in formal writing - therefore you should not do this" seems coherent to me. That is - being a "perfectly valid use of metonymy" is neither clearly an argument for not clearly an argument against the use of term.