Originally posted by oktronic
I think that answered it. Did you really think Stepanov would refer to 15 years of work as "quick and dirty"? lol
I know you are looking for anything to help you argue your opinion, but perhaps you should spend a little time looking into the mind of the creator of STL and into those who came long before him. Even Stroustrup wasn't eager to support STL and made Stepanov modify it before he would offer it up as a standard, maybe you should look at why?. A little research can go along way.
INTERVIEWER: Would you please tell us the most unforgettable, the happiest and the most regrettable things you felt in the course of standardization?
STROUSTRUP: ...the final 1998 vote ratifying the ISO standard. In between those events, the vote to accept the STL as part of the standard library standard stands out as a most happy event.
... (and later) ...
STROUSTRUP: Note that one major reason that the STL succeeded was that it was a technical breakthrough. It wasn't simply "yet another container library", so it didn't have to compete directly against the many existing container libraries (several of which were of excellent quality).
Yes, Stroustrup had a few early arguments on details, but then he became one of the strongest supporters of the STL -- calling its acceptance as one of the happiest events in the C++ standardization. He even said it "wasn't simply 'yet another container library.'" So, oktronic, I don't know where you get the idea that the STL was added simply as a "quick and dirty container library." There is no support for this argument! (Or are you just trying to play devil's advocate and get on people's nerves?)